The PBS program Frontline on April 13 offered a look at the White House drive for healthcare reform titled Obama’s Deal. Like a previous Frontline special about the U.S. healthcare system, the program failed to adequately include single-payer. But the way the show did it this time was remarkable.
Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Programwas interviewed by Frontline–leading one to suspect thatthe show might include some discussion of truly universal healthcare systems like single-payer (aka Medicare for All).
But the program was a major disappointment. As she wrote (Consortium News, 4/15/10) after it aired, “Curiously, just as it was in the health ‘debate,’ single-payer, improved Medicare for All, was also excluded from the film.”
The strange thing is that Flowers actually appears on theshow (albeit briefly), in a scene recounting how single-payer activists disrupted a Senate Finance Committee hearing last May.But the protesters’ views are muddled by Frontline.
As the program explained it,insurance industry lobbyists were working to kill the public option from the Senate bill. At this pointsingle-payer activists appear. As Flowers explained:
The producers at Frontline carefully cut single-payer out of the film. When the host, Mr. [Michael] Kirk, interviewed me for “Obama’s Deal,” we spoke extensively of the single-payer movement and my arrest with other single-payer advocates in the Senate Finance Committee last May. However, our action in Senate Finance was then misidentified as “those on the left” who led a “counterattack” because of “liberal outrage” at being excluded.
The framing of the Frontline segment would lead viewers to believe these activistswere public-option proponents, which they are not. Groups like PNHP were critical of the public option–a government-run insurance plan that would be offered to some as an alternative to mandatory private health insurance–arguing that it would leave the insurance industry intact as dominant players in the healthcare business.
After Frontline aired footage of the arrests of single-payer activists, a voicesays: “So what Chairman Baucus has decided this option cannot be part of the discussion at a Senate hearing? Now, I think that’s wrong. I don’t think it’s fair.” The implication was that “option” here refers to the public option– since no other option had been mentioned.
That voice was actually MSNBC host Ed Schultz–a supporter ofsingle-payer. His full quote (5/7/09) would have made that clear:
Now, let me explain single-payer for just a minute.
The money comes from one source, the government. Now, you and I pay taxes, OK. The government pays the bill. It’s that simple.
Patients are not caught in the middle between doctors and insurance companies, no game-playing here. There’s no middleman. You know? There’s no decision-makers between you and your doctor. It’s a clean deal.
So what Chairman Baucus has decided, this option cannot be part of the discussion at a Senate hearing? Now, I think that’s wrong. I don’t think it’s fair.
Thussingle-payer activists weretransformed into advocates for the public option.
This is not the first time that Frontline has decided that a conversation about healthcare reform should exclude single-payer from the discussion. The March 31, 2009 Frontline special Sick Around America avoided discussions of national healthcare plans. This omission led Frontline correspondent T.R. Reid–who had hosteda previous Frontline special (4/15/08) that examined various public healthcare models– to withdraw from the project.
PBS ombud Michael Getler agreed with those who thought the show missed a chance to discuss single-payer. It looks like the program has done so again.
I find it odd to speak of PBS missing a chance to discuss single payer. That’s akin to saying Obama missed a chance to back it.
Both suppose a fumbled desire to do so, don’t they? But since we’re supposedly dealing in reality, why not call it for what it is?
I think words matter, and if it looks like a horse, and smells like a horse, then guess what that is in a pile beneath it?
One omission might be dismissed as ignorance or incompetence. Two, separated by months, is clearly intentional. We know that PBS has gotten significantly more conservative over the years. The end of the Bill Moyers Journal and the cancellation of NOW confirm this. Less clear is what donors PBS might be trying to appease.
One needs to remember that its not a conscious decision by PBS to become significantly more conservative. We have to remember that as long as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is going to be strapped for cash and practically forced to appeal to the upper crust of society, the news network that belongs to the public will forever be out of our hands. We should not be criticizing PBS; we should be criticizing our representatives who refuse to give us true public media.
DVB, I have to disagree.
When you look at the actions taken over the years by “public” broadcasting, amply documented by the folks at FAIR, the only empirical conclusion you can come to is that these are wilful, intentional acts, isn’t it?
It’s like saying the Democratic Party would *like* to be truly progressive, but the need for “political pragmatism” prevents them from being so.
That’s a hard sell to the people on the short end of that stick, isn’t it?
And it’s a hard sell to convince me that a network whose core programming consists mostly of business programs, cooking shows, skewed history presentations, managing your upper income advice and thinly disguised corporate propaganda would really like to give us the straight skinny, but it’s out of their hands.
You might say to defy its gummint and corporate funders would mean the end of its existence.
And I’d say that it has no reason for existing if it doesn’t, does it?
But I would miss AMERICA’S TEST KITCHEN.
Mr. Latimer, I would like to disagree.
Well, I would like to know what I was disagreeing with, since I’m pretty sure I addressed ALL those problems by putting it squarely on the shoulders of those who criticize yet fail to do anything about it. Yes, PBS programming is directed at the upper crust. Yes, there’s nothing (considering how PBS generates its funding by APPEALING to the upper crust) PBS can do right now. Yes, they are intentional (in the fact that they intentionally decided to appeal to the upper crust). However, this is what an improperly funded public system looks like. Strapped for cash, public systems will HAVE to rely on the donations of the upper crust, and the only way to rely on the upper crust is to give them what they want. We are a democracy, and like all facets of the public sector, there are ways we (as a democracy) can fix this.
Face the facts. A News organization needs large amounts of capital in order to give the information we need. As citizens of a Democracy, we cannot work on information that is biased to begin with. Private news companies will forever be biased as long as there is no democratic way to ensure that the content it produces is in the interests of the public. Now, if you want to believe that an ethical billionaire will come by and make your ideal news organization, fine by me.
But if you want to actually change things, PBS is in an interesting position to actually be the news organization we need. Its already entrenched in our telecommunication system, we would not have to petition from wealthy donors to build this system, and all citizens would be responsible for its content. We could have an institution that serves the public’s interest as long as PBS was properly funded with federal taxes. You would have no idea how much this would solve ALL of PBS’s problems. PBS would no longer have to appeal to the upper crust for donations. PBS would no longer have to edit its news programming and will properly report events, free from upper crust criticism. PBS would not have to worry about owner censorship (as WE would own it). Anyone who despises the corporatism of today’s day and age would be a fool to completely ignore the possibilities of PBS.
Also, the Democratic party was and never will be a progressive party. You are naive for thinking its political pragmatism and not corporate control that dominates the decisions of the ruling elites in the Party.
I’m not much for responding to ad hominem attacks – and being called “naive” qualifies as such to my mind, much less a “fool” – but since you’ve misinterpreted my comments, I feel compelled to set the record straight.
Let’s take the Demorats first (no, that’s not a misspelling). I was stating the rationalization put forth by “progressive” defenders of the party, and if you couldn’t suss that, I’m not sure reading on will be of much benefit to you.
But anyway …
There’s a difference between condemning an entity as it currently exists, and claiming that it has no public value per se. I thought I was being pretty clear that I was engaged in the former. I’d like to think most of the folks reading my remarks had no problem understanding my intent.
Certainly a publicly funded news source that actually provides news honestly and accurately would be a tremendous benefit to that public. But that’s not what we’ve got, and contrary to your seeming willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt, that’s not the stymied intent of those who run it.
They’re perfectly happy to be lapdogs for the elites, just like the rest of the corpress. Under those circumstances, the system’s raison d’etre is null and void, isn’t it?
I don’t know how to put it any plainer than that. I’d welcome the assistance of anyone who’d like to try.
I apologize for the ad hominem attacks, but it seems you’re misrepresenting what I’M trying to say. I’ll also let your ad hominem slide as, after all, I did strike first.
I happen to think that we actually AGREE on the state of Public Media in America. I am very aware that this is a conscious push (As I said in my second post, and unclearly stated in my first post). I am very aware they are the lapdogs for the elites (As I said in my first and second posts very clearly). I also do not give them the benefit of the doubt, which is why I explicitly state that IT IS GOING TOWARD THE RIGHT (Let’s not forget that its most recent additions to its executive team are all outsourced from Corporate Media). What I’m trying to say that they have no choice. For NPR and PBS to survive they need to pander to the elite. I’m not excusing what they’re doing. I’m simply presenting the state of affairs our public media system is going through.
However, unlike your posts, which seem to only contain grievances, I purport ways we can fix this, as our public media is technically ours. I want to change the system, I really do. And it seems that you also believe our public media needs reform. And as much as I love debating our telecommunication policies here in America, I don’t think a 3rd post to reiterate my position would be constructed for anyone.
Can’t we get along? You seem like a pretty cool dude.
Before anyone points out, yes I realize that that WAS my 3rd post reiterating my position, and there may be typos abound, including but not limited to “constructed.”
> I apologize for the ad hominem attacks, but it seems you’re misrepresenting what I’M trying to say.
>
Apology accepted.
I’m only going by what you say. If your meaning’s unclear, please clarify, as I tried to.
> I’ll also let your ad hominem slide as, after all, I did strike first.
>
I disagreed – where do you think I dissed?
> I happen to think that we actually AGREE on the state of Public Media in America. I am very aware that this is a conscious push (As I said in my second post, and unclearly stated in my first post). I am very aware they are the lapdogs for the elites (As I said in my first and second posts very clearly). I also do not give them the benefit of the doubt, which is why I explicitly state that IT IS GOING TOWARD THE RIGHT (Let’s not forget that its most recent additions to its executive team are all outsourced from Corporate Media).
>
Again, I can only go by what you say. In your first post, you said this wasn’t a “conscious decision”, and that we “should not be criticizing PBS”. I have enough trouble trying to figure out what the hell *I’m* trying to say.
> What I’m trying to say that they have no choice. For NPR and PBS to survive they need to pander to the elite. I’m not excusing what they’re doing. I’m simply presenting the state of affairs our public media system is going through.
>
Fair enough, but “choice” implies, well, choice, and there’s always the choice to not play the game. It also implies that these bastards have the moral fortitude to make that choice. I’ve seen no evidence of that, have you?
> However, unlike your posts, which seem to only contain grievances, I purport ways we can fix this, as our public media is technically ours. I want to change the system, I really do. And it seems that you also believe our public media needs reform.
>
I think most of my posts implicitly or explicitly advocate for change based on principles of common humanity. Why would I condemn the status quo if I didn’t think it had to change? No, I didn’t delineate any specific proposal. I’m not sure why that would invalidate what I said.
You did, and I appreciate your position. Not that you’re saying so, but I’d point out that publicly funding an entity fully doesn’t guarantee public benefit. The actions of the US military puts the lie to that, doesn’t it?
> And as much as I love debating our telecommunication policies here in America, I don’t think a 3rd post to reiterate my position would be constructed for anyone.
>
I think it’s clear now. If you care to reply to this, please go head on.
> Can’t we get along? You seem like a pretty cool dude.
>
That’s what my mother tells me. -g-
I think we’re jake, if you now suss where I’m coming from. Written comms can be a right bastard, can’t they?
I stopped contributing to public broadcasting when the Mobil adds started. We need a Single-Payer PBS as well as for health care. Government funding without government interference–& definitely none from the corporados.
I saw some program on PBS the other night. The sponsors were BAE, Lockheed Martin, GE, Gates Foundation…
Public Breadcrusting went wrong when they went into the big-budget mode. “Non-profit” execs with 6-figure salaries. Then there was the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Kenneth Tomlinson, remember?
That’s the road public broadcasting is on. Its credibility is valuable for propagandists, and PBS gets to pimp it for big bux!
P.S. I like Sesame Street.
I think you guys are great. A little too smart for me, but I do know taking away NOW & Bill Moyers Journal was the end for me. I would like my contribution back, & it was my last. I can now go & watch FOX to get my news!! ARRGGH!
You guys are really great, but way too smart for me. I can only say with NOW & Bill Moyers Journal leaving, that is the end of PBS for me. I would like my donation back & it is my last one. I guess I contributed to the big corporations. I specified the donation was for Bill Moyers Journal. Well, I guess I can watch Fox now & get the “real” news. AARRGH!!!