Posted on 08/23/2009 7:01:07 PM PDT by Al B.
For once, mainstream journalists did not retreat to the studied neutrality of quoting dueling antagonists.
They tried to perform last rites on the ludicrous claim about President Obama's death panels, telling Sarah Palin, in effect, you've got to quit making things up.
But it didn't matter. The story refused to die.
The crackling, often angry debate over health-care reform has severely tested the media's ability to untangle a story of immense complexity. In many ways, news organizations have risen to the occasion; in others they have become agents of distortion. But even when they report the facts, they have had trouble influencing public opinion.
In the 10 days after Palin warned on Facebook of an America "in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel,' " The Washington Post mentioned the phrase 18 times, the New York Times 16 times, and network and cable news at least 154 times (many daytime news shows are not transcribed).
While there is legitimate debate about the legislation's funding for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions, the former Alaska governor's claim that government panels would make euthanasia decisions was clearly debunked.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In honor of your post, I'll roll out my alternate tagline...LOL.
Don’t any of the so called journalists have families? Don’t they have babies, grandparents, special needs relatives? They must be able to at least realize that they themselves and their spouses will one day fall under Emmanuel’s quota system for health care. Good Lord. Wake up people!
Do you believe this guy...?
Howard Kurtz obviously doesn’t read his own paper.
Washington Post article...
Undue Influence
The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel
By Charles Lane
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years — or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.
Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning — gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like — but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.
The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial “Welcome to Medicare” physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.
Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.
What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
When a bunch of us decided to protest Rep. Lois Capps office when she refused to hold a Town Hall meeting about health care legislation, we were greeted by thugs wearing matching T-Shirts and carrying mostly matching printed signs. We were just a bunch of folks who met during the Tax Day Tea Party and we circulated an email about our plans to meet in front of Rep. Capps office. The America Works folks, PUEBLO, SEUI folks, SB Action group, etc showed up early and took the corners and tried to intimidate average citizens from coming to ask questions about the bill. We still had a great showing and I was especially impressed by the young people who showed up in support of Freedom. Here is my favorite video from the Freedom Rally but there were many people who read from the bill and asked intelligent questions while the ACORNERS chanted "What do we want?" and then "When do we want it?". It was absolutely ignorant and childish.
Here is my favorite clip from a young man named Justin Tevis who is running for Santa Barbara City Council. He is a very well educated young man with a degree in International Studies and History from Claremont. He has also studied abroad in Chile and Israel. He is a very bright and passionate young man.
Twenty-Something Justin Tevis passionately expresses his love of the Free Market
Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_2
Heh...well, thanks for the information. It does have a nice ring to it! Keep spreading it around and it will become the norm..ha...
Great read, thanks.
And there we have it. The MSM has lost control...and they know it.
Our so-called journalists are inept. What else is new?
Another “citizen of the world”. These people do not consider themselelves to be Americans..rather.. elite..”citizens of the world”. They are above all of this nitty gritty mindless day to day drivel. Dontcha know.
And virtually every one of these mentions was an effort to attack Sarah Palin and tell her "to quit making things up." How'd that work out, eh, you effete left wing snobs? Who do people think is lying: Sarah, or Obama and his presstitutes?
Now Howie Kurtz has decided to attack Sarah for the 189th time, if his numbers are correct. Some people never learn.
You forgot the barf alert on this. And Howard Kurtz has really missed the story on this. Let me re-write his article for him.
The Mainstream media, despite strenuous effort, has not been able to hide from the public the evil and utilitarian intents of Pres. Obama’s plans for “health care reform”. The American people, with no help at all from our constitutionally mandated free press has finally seen through the lies and the bluster of the big O. What the heck are we losers in the MSM going to do for the next 3 1/2 years?
No, they "killed" the end-of-life counseling provision, which was NOT what Ms. Palin was talking about, at all. As usual, Kurz and the WaPo are being deliberately dishonest...
the infowarrior
“Our so-called journalists are inept. What else is new?”
A professional journalist must perform according to the requirements of management to keep his position. Management decides whether to publish or reject a story and whether give the story prominent display or bury it to the “back pages.” Management may encourage the public to believe that journalists expressed their own opinion but only the management decides which reportage receives prominent display.
Don’t be fooled. Any bias or “ineptness” in the media is the result of management policy. Journalists are only employees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.