ABC’s Obamacare “Infomercial”
I’m an independent, not a conservative. I’ve been scoffing at the hysterical hyperbole of those on the right who throw around the word “tyrant” (wannabe) in regard to President Obama. This, however, really scares me.
I know. It’s Drudge. Find me a source that disputes the essential facts of the matter, or that presents a plausible argument in favor of a major broadcast network setting up in the White House, giving the administration lavish air time to pitch a legislative initiative that will profoundly affect all Americans, without opposition voices other than those preselected by the network. In consultation with the administration? That would be an assumption, but a fair one.
It’s as if the major media are voluntarily nationalizing themselves. It makes me feel disoriented. Someone will say “Just go watch Fox News!” Well, I suppose I could, and then try to split the difference. The point is, everyone has an agenda. No one can be trusted to tell it like it is. Or: how you tell it is how it is. (This reminds me of an article I linked a couple of years ago on AmbivaBlog about how the right, too, now acts on the principle that there’s no “reality” outside of how you spin it. And here it is! Biased, so read it with irony.) Has it always been that way? Is it just some sort of geezer nostalgia to think that a David Brinkley stood loftily above the fray? [added] And far worse than just having left media and right media (which is bad enough), a supposedly independent arm of the press is now coupling itself to the power of the state.
Let’s say you fully support President Obama’s vision of health care reform. You’d even be glad if it was speeding us along the path to a single-payer system. You believe health care is a basic human right that should be made available to all, not a commercial good to be traded for profit. You are convinced that a public option is at least a step in the right direction.
Does that justify ramming it down the throats of your countrymen without a full public debate?
Do you like seeing the media divided into the propaganda arm of the party in power and the propaganda arm of the opposition? Should I be grateful that at least there are still two voices?
Ambiance 
PatHMV said,
June 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm
ABC has confirmed the essential facts. Their defense is that they and they alone are selecting the audience for the “town hall” event.
So their idea of a full, even-handed debate is the President of the United States, in the White House, being questioned by a random selection of ordinary citizens.
They’ve lost their minds. They (the network people who make these decisions) are so blinded by their own political beliefs that they truly don’t see what the problem is. Oh, well. They’ll still be wondering what happened 6 months after the last of their viewers departs.
Maxwell said,
June 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Meh. I think ABC looked at the ratings for the Obama campaign infomercial last fall (they were the only major network to not show it) and decided they wanted to get in on the action.
On the other hand, if Simon Johnson is right about this, I’ll be pretty pissed off tomorrow afternoon.
amba12 said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Yeah, Maxwell, but then he was a candidate buying air time. Now he’s the President of the United States.
If he soft-pedals regulatory reform and compensation reform because the government is basically in the deep pocket of Wall Street, should the right shut up about socialism?
Bruce B. (chickenlittle) said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm
But protesting too hard will raise talk of the “fairness doctine” won’t it? (which is what the networks and the Obama admin. both want).
The best thing to do is to avoid the broadcast. It’s not like that would be out of step with the history of healthcare reform.
Maxwell said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:18 pm
If he soft-pedals regulatory reform and compensation reform because the government is basically in the deep pocket of Wall Street, should the right shut up about socialism?
No, they should just get loud about Wall Street Socialism. A Wall Street-K Street alliance must be fiercely opposed by both Right and Left, with whatever weapons we have.
Maxwell said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm
But protesting too hard will raise talk of the “fairness doctine” won’t it?
I was wondering about that too. You get what you pay for.
The best thing to do is to avoid the broadcast. It’s not like that would be out of step with the history of healthcare reform.
Word. It’s likely to be boring and misleading anyway, as most infomercials are.
amba12 said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Thanks. I was thinking when I first heard this that I ought to look up the Fairness Doctrine; I was like “Wait a minute, conservatives are against that, aren’t they?”
The trouble is it’s blurring the lines scandalously between official occasion, partisan persuasion, and “objective” coverage. The State of the Union Address is covered and commented on by the networks, but is delivered strictly by the President, and there is a formal opposition response. This thing is not “official” so it doesn’t call either legally or (speaking loosely) morally for opposition involvement. Yet there it is, all the power of the state. It’s creepy because it’s so unclear.
It’s those who already know something about the issue who may avoid the broadcast. For others, who will tune in just to see the presidential superstar, it will be their source of information.
PatHMV said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
One can protest the idiocy and stupidity of ABC News in doing this, pointing out the damage it does to both the network and our polity in general, without supporting the Fairness Doctrine.
Too often in our politics, we equate recognition of a problem with support for a solution, and ever sometimes a particular solution. We need to stop that. There are many, many things which should be free and legal to do, but which should be protested against quite fiercely. That I protest it does not in any way signify support for government action to “fix” the problem.
Randy said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:25 pm
A Wall Street-K Street alliance must be fiercely opposed by both Right and Left
Not to be sarcastic but it is far too late for that: the barn door has rotted off it’s hinges, the barn roof collapsed under the weight of bullshit piled upon it, and the only signs of the long-gone horses are bleached bones.
Bruce B. (chickenlittle) said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:26 pm
ABC consigned themselves to Obama in the last election as far as I can remember, spearheading the demise of Palin (Charles Gibson).
This, however, really scares me.
It is scary to watch this stuff happen before your eyes and feel helpless to do anything.
Maxwell said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Randy,
That’s a finely crafted metaphor. But “too late” is just an excuse for not grabbing a shovel and getting started building a new foundation.
Maxwell said,
June 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Which makes me sound more chipper than I am about it. I see it as a choice between a long slog that we won’t live to see the end of, and putting off a long slog that we won’t live to see the end of.
Melinda said,
June 17, 2009 at 12:15 am
Is it just some sort of geezer nostalgia to think that a David Brinkley stood loftily above the fray?
No, I think it was that most of the country was moderately liberal in the 1960’s. The radical left was against “Establishment” liberals, but the default setting for mainstream America as Moderately Liberal. Which would look pretty socially conservative today!
Ally said,
June 17, 2009 at 8:59 am
Hmm, so now bloggers are criticizing the MSM for behaving like giant blogs? Hasn’t this been happening for years? Didn’t the MSM meekly parrot the Bush team’s lines about why we needed to invade Iraq?
amba12 said,
June 17, 2009 at 11:25 am
Ally: You bet bloggers are criticizing the MSM for behaving like giant blogs!! Because at heart, bloggers know that most of us (with a growing number of significant exceptions, independent reporters like Totten; you can probably name more) are just bullshit artists. We depend on reporters to get the information we sound off on. If the MSM turn into giant blogs, we’ll have nothing to start from. It will be like trying to pole vault from a swamp.
PatHMV said,
June 17, 2009 at 11:32 am
Actually, as I recall, what the MSM did with Bush and the Iraq War was pick up only ONE reason, of the many given, for going to war, and repeat it relentlessly as if it were the only reason for war. Of course, at the time, one would have been hard-pressed to find any Democrats who were denying that Iraq had, or had the immediate potential to obtain, weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton said it, Senator Clinton said it, Madeline Albright said it, you name it. The Democrats’ position was “yeah, they have WMD, and yeah, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and yeah, he won’t let the inspectors in, but still, let’s talk with him another 10 years.”
I would have been happy to see more and better questions of President Bush by the MSM. Unfortunately, they have long since lost the ability to do so. They either parrot party lines or they go into relentless attack mode. Neither is appropriate, but that’s all they do any more.
amba12 said,
June 17, 2009 at 11:37 am
Pat: It’s a strange feeling (to me) to have to go actively hunting for your news here and there online. That was the one thing I still relied on cable TV and newspapers for.
People give each other a helping hand on blogs and Twitter, and that helps, but you never know where you’ll end up!
PatHMV said,
June 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I spent enough of my life in the days of only 3 networks (plus PBS!) to know what you mean. My own feeling is that after Watergate, the press went from being cynical and skeptical to being actively antagonistic to those in power. It’s good to “question authority,” but sometimes one ought to accept the answers to those questions.
The press, I find, tends to lack any sense of proportionality. The smallest scandals get blown up far beyond its actual importance, while more serious issues are relegated to the back pages and 15 seconds deep inside the nightly news, because they’re more boring and more complicated.
I do remember when FactCheck.org started up thinking to myself, “hey, isn’t that what the newspapers are supposed to do?” Instead, the papers would print “Bush claims X” and “Dukakis claims Y,” without giving any actual explanation of where both camps were getting their facts, and what the issues relating to those facts were. But that would require actual work, and would take more time than is available in today’s 24-hour news cycle.
amba12 said,
June 17, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The root of the problem is that they’re ratings-driven. The people get the news they deserve. The trouble is it’s a vicious cycle: news that panders to the neurological bottom line (i.e. goes for the strong attractors: car wrecks, sex, celebrity gossip) drives down the quality of the audience; addicts people to sensation, leaves their higher faculties unengaged, to atrophy. This is a problem of the “postliterate” media and I have no clue what the solution is, if there is one at all. How did those of us who find ideas and thinking exciting, get that way??
PatHMV said,
June 17, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Good parents, usually… (Thanks, Mom & Dad!)