The Wall Street Journal continues its assault on health care reform, warning of "total government control of the health markets." Along the way, the Journal editorial hits the standard conservative media talking points on malpractice "reform."
The Wall Street Journal claims "trial lawyers and their stratospheric jury awards and settlements have led to major increases in the medical malpractice premiums, thus driving up the overall cost of U.S. health care."
But, as Media Matters has previously noted, the claim that lawsuits have driven up malpractice premiums and thus health care costs is overblown:
Malpractice premiums: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has documented the minimal impact that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums have on overall health care costs. A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report: "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."
The Journal then claims that as a result of lawsuits, doctors "practice defensive medicine, ordering unnecessary tests to immunize themselves if they do end up in court. Economists disagree on the precise burden of this legal fear, but some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year."
Again, Media Matters has noted that these concerns are overblown:
Defensive medicine: As FactCheck.org has noted, claims that "defensive medicine" drives up medical costs -- a principal Bush administration argument for tort reform -- have been dismissed as inconclusive by the General Accounting Office and the CBO. The CBO went further, declaring that there is "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."
Morning Joe just hosted Pete Peterson, giving him an opportunity to plug his book and spread his doom and gloom about "entitlement reform." As usual, the reporters present treated Peterson as though he is a Yoda, the Dalai Lama, and their grandfather all in one.
Nobody, for example, asked Peterson about his opposition to health care reform in the early 1990s ("The issue is whether we can afford it. We can't.") Since then, health care costs have skyrocketed, taking Medicare costs with them. So the failure of health care reform in 1993/1994 not only resulted in tens of millions of Americans going without health care for the past 15 years, it also contributed to the soaring Medicare spending that Pete Peterson insists is a crisis.
All of which suggests a second question somebody should probably ask Peterson: Why should we listen to you?
Yes, as Politico's Michael Calderone points out, Huffington Post is asking readers to vote for their favorite White House correspondent:
Current nominees: Chuck Todd, Savannah Guthrie, John Yang, Suzanne Malveaux, Ed Henry, Bill Plante, Jake Tapper, Major Garrett and Wendell Goler.
Henry would like your vote. But some think there are some notable exemptions: Former White House press office staffer Pete Seat wants Chip Reid and Washington Times White House correspondent Christina Bellantoni thinks Mark Knoller was robbed.
Do you think you are fooling people? In this entire article, you never once address what the FAR MAJORITY of Doctors believe. They believe that a nationalized program will be the downfall of coverage and care as we know it. There is no argument there. And all you had to do was look at polls or interview them. It i no secret. Do your job as a jornalist. ...
If you all want to be responsible reporters, then report the facts. The facts are Doctors OVERWHELMINGLY are opposed to a nationalized plan. All you have to do is ask. And to imply that is not the case is hogwash, and you should be ashamed of yourselfs. Unfortunately, your lemming readers will belive it.
Well. I'm no journalist; I'm a media critic. But the reader is correct that responsible reporters should report the facts. And the facts are that, despite what the media is reporting about the AMA's recent comments would lead you to believe, most doctors support national health care:
More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.
"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.
The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.
MySpace has become a textbook case of how quickly a digital juggernaut can become a has-been, writes Matthew Flamm. The head of a research firm tells him: "It may be that Rupert [Murdoch] is ultimately a newspaper guy. The idea [with MySpace] may have been, 'We bought you, so make it happen for us.'"
Perhaps Rupert just couldn't figure out how to force one point of view down the throats of a few million users.
Go! Do things internets! I command thee!
Editor & Publisher has an interesting look at how newspaper editors are reacting to the use of popular social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook by their journalists. As you can imagine, newspaper ethics policies for social networking sites are all over the map...
From Editor & Publisher:
The Los Angeles Times issued a list of guidelines in March, while The Wall Street Journal gained attention in May when it expanded its conduct guidelines to include a host of online-related restrictions, including warnings not to "friend" confidential sources or get into Web- related arguments with critics. The Washington Post, just a day later, did the same (as I observe in my story on p. 5). But not everyone is laying down the law on Twitter. Some papers want staffers to take a casual, open approach, while others admit they aren't sure how to police the social media outlets and still allow them to be useful.
Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, started tweeting, albeit sparingly, last month. "I have asked people to use common sense and respect the workplace and assume whatever they tweet will be tied to the paper," he told me. "Even when they are tweeting personal information to their followers, they are still representing the New York Times."
The Washington Post's new policy on social networking sites, created in mid-May, asks users to avoid "verbal fisticuffs with rivals or critics." The paper's policy adds: "In general, we expect that the journalism our reporters produce will be published through The Washington Post, in print or digitally, not on personal blogs, Facebook or MySpace pages, or via Twitter or other new media. We are happy to have reporters post links to their stories or other Post material.
The Los Angeles Times "social media" guidelines make clear that staffers are always representing the paper when they engage in online activities: "Assume that your professional life and your personal life merge online regardless of your care in separating them. Don't write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise your ability to do your job."
When I asked Associated Press Director of Media Relations Paul Colford about Twitter and Facebook policies, he cited a portion of the AP's "news values and principles," which states: "Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP's reputation as an unbiased source of news."
Perhaps news outlets (print/broadcast/online) should post their ethics policies online. Not just policies as they relate to social networking but the policies that guide reporters in general.
Over the years we've seen numerous examples of media figures breaching the tenants of basic journalistic integrity if not their employers' stated ethics policies. If editors are too busy to police their own reporters, I'm sure the American people would be happy to pick up the slack – on Twitter, on Facebook, on the news pages or on the air.
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter.
It's the one conservatives, and even Beltway pundits, are still crowing about as definitive proof that the press has swooned over Obama; that it refuses to write critically about the new president. That the press has a liberal bias.
It's all very awful and dangerous, we're told again and again:
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
That was the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson, who built a recent column around the Pew study. In fact, it was the only evidence Samuelson used to prove his point. The Pew study said it all, right?
First, we've never been crazy about the Pew studies simply because they're an act of faith. Pew says its researchers look over all kinds of media coverage and determine which reports are "favorable," which were "neutral" and which were "negative." Personally, I don't see how most news report could or would fit into any category but "neutral."
Does Pew really suggest that Newsweek or the New York Times routinely publish political news article that are entirely positive or entirely negative. That doesn't sound like the news report I'm familiar with.
But more importantly with the Obama study, Pew made a very big deal about the fact that 42 percent of Obama's press coverage was, according to its researchers, positive. But when you start poking around Pew's methodology, that number doesn't look so firm. Why? Because the 42 percent figure was culled from a study that examined just seven media outlets to determine the tone of Obama's coverage.
No joke. The Pew study only monitored coverage in the Times, the WashPost, Newsweek, as well as the evening news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS.
That kind of study might have worked in 1984 or even 1994. But it in no way reflects the mushrooming media choices news consumers face today. And that's why, to Pew's credit, it did a second, broader study, which monitored Obama's coverage among nearly 50 media outlets, including cable TV and online.
What were the results of that study? Obama's press coverage was first and foremost neutral, not positive: 40 percent neutral, 37 percent positive and 23 percent negative. But rather than go with the headline "Obama's Press Coverage Mostly Neutral," Pew hyped the finding from the study with the ridiculously small media base and crowed that the new president's coverage was quite favorable.
BTW, the name of the Pew study was "Obama's First 100 Days" even though it really wasn't:
"Obama's First 100 Days" is based on the aggregated data and coding from January 21 through March 21, 2009. This timeframe begins the day following the inauguration of President Obama and runs through his 60th day in office.
I'm just sayin'.
Over the years Media Matters has released several detailed reports documenting the lack of ideological, racial and gender diversity within the media in general and on the all-important Sunday morning network political talk shows more specifically.
Well, this morning The Hill reports that the Congressional Black Caucus is calling for increased diversity on the Sunday shows:
"I'm not pleased at all with the diversity issue as it relates to talk shows," CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in an interview with The Hill. "We have, what, 17 subcommittee chairs and four full-committee chairmen? These members are brilliant; they know their stuff. They're powerful and they should be part of the Sunday morning talk shows."
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), secretary of the CBC, calls himself a "fan" of the Sunday shows, but said he'd like to see change.
"The morning talk shows need to increase the number of African-Americans," Butterfield said. "Not only for diversity, but it would also be good for the ratings."
The comments come three years after a study found a striking lack of black participants on the shows. The original study was completed before Democrats took over Congress in the 2006 elections, which put many more black and Hispanic lawmakers into positions of power.
But some legislators say that hasn't been reflected on the shows.
In the past, the networks have contended that their guest line-ups reflect those in power despite the fact that little changed in 2007 after Democrats took control of Congress. By their own standard one would expect things to look a little different on Sunday mornings these days.