MediaWatch: July 1996
Table of Contents:
Medicare: The Story with 1,060 Errors
No subject inspires more daily journalistic fabrication than the federal budget. For the last 15 years, as federal spending mushroomed, journalists told a story echoing liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith, of a squalid public sector starved of its necessary funds. No program benefited more from the statist illusions of baseline budgeting than Medicare, which reportedly suffered "deep cuts" as it expanded -- 72 percent in the Bush years, for example.
In the last 18 months, reporters have made Medicare "cuts" an essential part of its method of underlining the "extremism" of the Republican Congress. The GOP's balanced-budget plan called for a $270 billion reduction in projected Medicare increases over seven years (with spending per recipient scheduled to increase from $4,800 to $7,100), but "cuts" remained the most popular paradigm of reporting.
To determine the accuracy of Medicare coverage, MediaWatch analysts reviewed 1,134 news stories in three newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today) and three news magazines (Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report) from January 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. Employing the Nexis news data retrieval system to secure every news mention of "Medicare" within 10 words of "cut," "reduce," "slash," "scale back," and "savings," analysts found 1,060 examples of journalists describing Medicare "cuts."
Analysts counted multiple references within stories, but only references to overall Medicare spending growth, and did not include references to specifics, such as smaller reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Also omitted were references to "saving" Medicare, which do not refer to spending. Analysts did include descriptions that did not match the search terms ("gut," "trim," "shrink," "chop," "slice," "curtail").
Other less harsh and inaccurate terms were also used. References to "savings" were most common, with 439 mentions. "Cuts in the growth" of Medicare spending drew 347 uses, and "cuts in projected spending" appeared 115 times. But the 901 uses of these terms were outnumbered by the 1,060 uses of "cut" variants. In this sample of stories inaccurate terminology drew more than half (54 percent) of journalistic declarations of Medicare's up-or-down fiscal fate.
Even the more accurate terms were garbled reactions to the dominant baseline-budgeting news paradigm. After all, how informative is the term "savings" when spending will increase by seven percent instead of ten percent? "Cuts in growth" and "cuts in projected spending" are interesting synonyms for a seven percent increase, especially when these terms were modified to sound harsher by reporters: "unreasonably large savings," "deep cuts in projected spending," "massive reductions in growth." To break it down by publication:
In 39 stories, Newsweek contained 24 mentions of "cuts," and only 11 more accurate terms: five of "savings," five of "cuts in growth," and one "cut in projected spending." The January 8, 1996 "Corporate Killers" cover story warned: "Congress's budget debate -- and possible cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid -- feeds fears that the social safety net is about to be savaged."
Out of 63 stories, Time employed 49 descriptions of "cuts," to 20 uses of "cuts in growth," nine of "savings," and two of "cuts in projected spending." The May 15, 1995 "The Week" news summary read: "The President's strategists were not about to offer Republicans a hand with their balanced-budget/tax-cut promises by agreeing to deep slashes in Medicare." Richard Lacayo wrote on February 12, 1996 that a flat tax "could mean either a higher deficit or even heavier spending cuts in such places as Medicare."
U.S. News & World Report's 69 stories included 47 "cut" terms to 55 of the more accurate terms -- the only source to tip slightly in accuracy's direction. The stories featured 29 references to "cuts in growth," 21 to "savings," and five to "cuts in projected spending." A March 13, 1995 budget story reported: "Among big-ticket programs, Medicare, the health care program for the elderly, and Medicaid, for the poor, both came in for major cuts."
The New York Times filed 508 stories matching the search terms, with 386 references to "cuts." Reports of "savings" came on 144 occasions, "cuts in growth" on 112, and "cuts in projected spending" on 76. On May 11, 1995, reporter David Sanger wrote: "But when it came to the details, they balked at many of the most extreme cuts, from the deepest slashes in Medicare to the elimination of the Commerce Department."
On October 27, the Times reported a controversy over its poll question: "If you had to choose, would you prefer balancing the budget or preventing Medicare from being significantly cut?" Not only did media outlets err in news stories, then they erred in their polls and in the news stories reporting the poll results.
In 256 stories, USA Today carried 157 mentions of "cuts," compared to 63 of "savings," 56 of "cuts in growth," and 12 of "cuts in projected spending." Reporter William M. Welch suggested on May 10, 1995 the Republican budget would "make huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid." Despite the 157 boo-boos, USA Today actually printed a correction on September 6, 1995: "In its Thursday edition, USA Today incorrectly states that Republicans have proposed reducing Medicare spending by $270 billion. Under the Republican reform proposal to ensure that the program remains solvent, Medicare spending over the next seven years increases."
The Washington Post led the survey with 397 uses of "cuts" and its variants in 370 stories, contrasted by 197 references to "savings," 125 to "cuts in growth," and 19 to "cuts in projected spending." An October 22, 1995 headline charged: "Critics Say Huge Medicare Cut Will Not Heal System as GOP Predicts." But the emblematic Post error came in reporter Howard Kurtz's attempt to correct a Clinton ad on February 7, 1996: "What the ads don't say is that Clinton has also proposed to cut Medicare spending, albeit less than the GOP." Kurtz's story, as well as the sample as a whole, suggests print reporters are hardly the most reliable judges of accuracy, even on the most basic budgetary truths.
