N.B. On further reflection, I've fallen victim to a good story too. Tom's post would have been better served by closer editorial oversight, an omission for which I am responsible. His integrity is unassailable, and any reporting errors—or judgment questions—should have been addressed by the editor before posting.
Just weeks after a "bruising health-care fight," Congressman Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) announced he would not run for re-election. By supporting what became politically incompatible principles: health care reform and a ban on federal funding for abortion, Stupak found few friends and made many enemies. Although more than a few liberal Democrats were unhappy with Stupak's role in forcing President Obama to sign an executive order affirming the funding ban, hard-line conservatives were even angrier when he voted for the bill. Claiming Stupak "caved," they targeted his congressional seat and swore to defeat him.Stupak's fate underscores the surreal nature of ultra-conservative political machinations as well as the media's capitulation to their Orwellian doublespeak. Was the ban on federal funding for abortion ever really at risk during the debate over health care reform? According to many observers, it was not because the Hyde Amendment stipulates that federal money cannot pay for abortions. (Since Hyde needs to be passed annually, ending the ban is possible, although not probable.)
Many news outlets, as CBS does here, made it clear that the bill will keep private insurance funds, which could cover abortion, separate from federal and taxpayer monies, which cannot subsidize the procedure. Moreover, no health care plan would be required to offer abortions. The fact that the bill was supported by a coalition of 59,000 Roman Catholic nuns, whose pro-life credentials are exemplary, suggests that hardliners were less worried about federal funding for abortion than extending health care benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.
Rather than expose this cynical ploy, most mainstream media played along—covering the story as if federal funds would pay for abortions should the bill pass. This is nothing new. As long as the rightwing narrative perpetuates conflict with crisp sound bites, reporters treat fictions as reality. The news media's inability or unwillingness to distinguish BS from news (yes on WMDs, no on climate change and a lot more to discuss on "because the Bible says so") is astounding at the very moment when they ought to be striving for credibility.
For these very reasons, I disagree with comments that my colleague Tom Pfingsten posted last week. As Tom argued, reporters should contextualize, analyze and avoid sensationalism. But neither should they play fast and loose with the facts. Why label "pro-life" nuns who supported health care reform as "progressive" if you know that word is associated with "pro-choice" politics in the minds of your audience? Why write "Christian taxpayers detest the idea of their money being used to fund what they consider to be state-sanctioned murder" when there was never a real possibility of public money paying for abortions?
As Tom said, the media did a poor job of explaining why abortion was a deal breaker (and subsequently why Stupak's support for the health care bill cost him his seat). But unlike Tom, I'd argue that's because the press coddles conservatives. Journalists have given hardliners a pass for so long that they've forgotten that distinguishing truth from lies is more important than telling a good story.
Diane Winston
| 
