By now, you probably know the recent history of health care reform. The individual mandate—the
requirement that everyone purchase health insurance—originally
proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, was
the cornerstone of Republican health care plans for two decades.
They preferred it because it encouraged “individual
responsibility.” President Obama opposed the individual mandate
during the 2008 campaign, but he and the Jackasses eventually
conceded in the hope of gaining conservative support. (Flip!)
Then, in 2009, in an even more remarkable turnaround, the Elephants
in Congress unanimously decided that the individual mandate was
unconstitutional. (Flop!)
As Ezra Klein reports, in 2010, when 14 Republican state attorneys general filed
their suit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care
Act (ACA), “it was hard to find a law professor in the country who
took them seriously.” (Here's an analysis of why the ACA is
constitutional.)
How did the
corporate media report on the constitutionality of the law? First of
all, here's what they were reporting on. There were nine court cases
related to the constitutionality of the act. Four of these courts
overturned the law and five upheld it. There were also several cases
in which courts dismissed complaints without ruling on the
constitutionality of the law.
Media Matters looked at all the reports devoted to these courts cases on the
nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC—a total of 31
segments. Of these 31 segments, 26 (84%) reported decisions that the
act was unconstitutional, 3 (10%) reported rulings that it was
constitutional, and the remaining 2 (6%) dealt with dismissals. If
instead of counting segments, you get out your stopwatch, you find
that a remarkable 97% of air time was spent discussing cases
that overturned the law.
Unfortunately, the researchers do not
report the number of minutes these newscasts devoted to
advertisements paid for by pharmaceutical companies, insurance
companies and health care providers.
Newspapers were only marginally better.
There were 59 articles about these court cases in the Los Angeles
Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal
and Washington
Post. Thirty-five
of them (59%) dealt with rulings that the ACA was unconstitutional,
17 (29%) dealt with decisions that it was constitutional, and 8 dealt
with dismissals. Rulings of unconstitutionality were far more likely
to make the front page.
It's possible that, initially, the
greater attention given to rulings that the ACA was unconstitutional
was due to the fact that journalists were surprised by these
decisions, given the near-unanimity of their legal experts. However,
that does not account for the consistency and longevity of these
findings.
The bottom line is that this unbalanced
coverage appears to have had its intended effect. A Gallup poll
released earlier this month found that 72% of Americans think the ACA
is unconstitutional. Several polls have found that the majority
favor repeal of the law. For example, Rasmussen reported that, as of
June 23-24, 54% of likely voters favor repeal and 39% oppose it.
Although, as my colleague Paul Ricci reports, a majority of those
folks favor starting work on a new health care reform bill, it's hard
to imagine that any new health care legislation could get through
Congress in the foreseeable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.