REPORT: On Fox News, opponents of health care reform outnumber supporters by 6-to-1 margin
SUMMARY: A Media Matters for America review of Fox News guests in segments discussing health care reform on August 10 and 11 found a substantial disparity in favor of opponents of progressive efforts to reform health care. Over the two days, Fox News hosted 63 opponents and only 10 supporters.
Fox News hosted far more guests opposed to progressive health care reform efforts
Reform opponents outnumbered supporters 63 to 10. A Media Matters review of digital video and Nexis transcripts of Fox News programming during August 10 and 11 revealed the number of guests in opposition to progressive health care reform efforts to be more than six times greater than the number of guests who were supportive of such efforts.
Guests who voiced opposition to progressive efforts to reform health care, criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's August 10 USA Today op-ed, or voiced support of protests at recent town hall meetings were counted as in opposition. Guests who voiced support for progressive health care reform efforts or who criticized the protests at recent town hall meetings were counted as supportive. Guests who fit neither category were counted as neutral.
Study consistent with Fox News' coverage of health reform
Fox News continues to advance misinformation on health care reform. As Media Matters has documented in recent days, Fox News' reporting and commentary on health care reform has been riddled with falsehoods and misinformation. The stark disparity in favor of guests who oppose reform is in keeping with the network's coverage of the issue.
Methodology
Media Matters reviewed digital video or Nexis transcripts of all original Fox News programming for August 10 and 11, 2009, between 6 a.m. and 10:59 p.m. ET. (Fox News airs a repeat of The O'Reilly Factor at the 11 p.m. ET hour.)
Media Matters counted all guests who appeared in segments that involved a discussion of health care reform and the debate surrounding it. Each guest's position on health care reform was derived from statements made during that guest's appearance. The few guests who criticized the town hall protests but also voiced opposition to the progressive reform efforts were coded as in opposition. In rare instances, a guest may have conflicting codes for different appearances. For example, on the August 10 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, Mort Kondracke criticized the town hall protests but did not comment on the reform efforts and was thus coded as a supporter in that appearance. But on the August 11 edition of the same show, Kondracke voiced opposition to the Obama administration's efforts to reform health care, and was thus coded as in opposition.
RSS Feeds
Fixed News and his newest one: Cluster Fox
A good runner up is the one I use a lot...
Fox-Noise
The government is recovering 2,744.4 million from health care providors over bilking their customers. With more cases in the pipeline to be settled.
Thank you. That is exactly right. And let's also add that even though the US pays 6,000 per person, we are ranked 37th in the world in overall coverage, and 72 in our health!
>>But Jessica Yellin, CNN’s national political correspondent, commenting on Senator Cardin’s town meeting in Hagerstown, Md., pointed out what news people already know: when journalists cite outright misstatements by public officials, the American people “don’t seem to trust us.”
Belief tops facts, again.
An incredible percentage didn't know if Barack Obama was an American.
When only Republicans were surveyed, the number went up to , I believe. 75% who were clueless.
But the people doing the survey threw in a control question, asking if Hawaii was part of the U.S., and I believe it was 12% that didn't know.
Keep repeating this falsehood enough time and you'll start to actually believe it.
I've debunked the 37th ranking in the world on this forum several times. That rank is based on biased faulty data from a ten year old study. I see you cherry picked your ranking talking point out of the Overall Performance data which used THEORETICAL methodology.
I'm all for a good debate on health care, let's at least start with useful correct data. MMfA screams from the rooftops that the right is muddying the waters on this debate. Yet you use biased data to bolster your point. Isn't that the same thing?
I think the system needs tweeking but not a major overhaul. That is in line when 85% of people are satisfied with their coverage.
A better argument than most TBS but still wanting.
"85% of people are satisfied with their coverage." One, this number is arrived at by polling those WITH healthcare coverage, which we all know is not representative of the US population since millions of people do not have overage. Two, they are satisfied because they have never had a serious illness or been denied coverage due to some phoney pre-existing illness claim. And three, being satisfied and having good coverage are not equal. It is quite possible that many of those respondents say they are satisfied because they have no alternative but the employer based coverage they are stuck with. So, some coverage (even if it sucks) is better than no coverage and hence, they are "satisfied".
No you haven't. You keep citing opinion pieces or reports that have nothing to do with WHO, and then claim victory. WHO actually ranks the US *72* in overall health. I also quoted these two statistics:
"The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[87] and 46th for highest total life expectancy.[88] A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations"
AND
"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the United States ranked poorly in terms of Years of potential life lost (YPLL), a statistical measure of years of life lost under the age of 70 that were amenable to being saved by health care. Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details."
link
Yes, and keep linking to editorials and studies by the CATO Institute and maybe you will believe what is really propaganda, the nonsense you post here. Do you think you can just provide a link and that equal refutation?
To continue on the absurdity of your so-called refutation. You quote from CATO, a libertarian think tank:
"Overall, the WHO rankings’ mathematical formulations serve only to distract attention from the authors’ underlying distaste for individual choice in health care...By contrast, a free-market health care system upholds the right of every person to make his own decisions."
CATO's "reasoning" doesn't even amount to an argument. It simply descends into a rant. You notice how CATO does not dispute the fact that the US has a high infant mortality rate or short life expectancy rate compared to other industrial nations.
As for short life expectancy, WHO data doesn't include homicide and accidents. When those data are taken into account the US is on par with other industrialized countries.
Once again, you're not proving WHO data is not biased. I've given you example after example. As for your link below, well the Commonwealth Fund used WHO data, faulty biased data, as its core study. Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test.
Groan! You simply are making up statistics here. You make a very plausible argument--until one realizes you've linked to the same biased CATO report! You make claims about France's birth rate and the homicide rate--but don't link to anything!
What is funny is CATO arguing that WHO has a bias, when the whole reason CATO exists is to promote anything anti-government. There are tons of institutions that do reporting on health. I've linked to 3 more that support WhO's conclusion. You've linked to nothing besides editorials and CATO (which, as I point below, often pushes flawed data).
>>As for your link below
I linked to three studies. Did the CIA also used the so-called flawed study? So now you are claiming that the non-partisans Commonwealth Fund is using bad judgment? (Hint: it is more like the knee-jerk right wingers here.)
Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
My contention is as strong as ever: the US is 37th in the world in health care, but we pay double. In how healthy we are, we are actually 72!
I've shown you several examples of the WHO methodology and why it is flawed. You haven't once taken the task of proving their methodology right. I'm guessing you can't do it. I'll give you another shot though. Notice the usual suspects aren't helping you out on this. That's a big clue Funnyman.
As for our friends at the Commonwealth fund, I like how you say they are NON PARTISAN. I did some Googl'n on the board of directors and guess what I found? Oh, yes. Care to take a gamble? Lifelong democrats dedicated to socialized style medicine. I can't seem to find the OMFG? link anymore. Anyway, it's a INTERNATIONAL study and can be dismissed right out of the gate. Sorry. Left wing loon sites don't cut here.
BTW, the link below on the Oct 15, '08 quoted is just a statement of a study.
You keep yelling from the rooftops. Feel free to ignore the facts though. Better yet when you get sick instead of going to our doctors, head on over to Morocco for a little treatment! After all they were ranked 29th in your biased study!
I bet that's more than every other industrialized country COMBINED.
But keep on keepin' on, t-bone. We'll get health care reform passed and even you will be covered. That is, of course, unless you prefer to stay with your over-priced, under-covered, for-profit, ceo-salary-subdizing health care coverage.
You've earned a free bumper sticker:
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
"Oct. 15, 2008 -- The U.S. ranks 29th worldwide in infant mortality, tying Slovakia and Poland but lagging behind Cuba, the CDC reports."
link
"while the overall infant mortality rate was 23% (95% CI 19-26%) higher (50.8 vs 41.4 per 10 000 births, respectively) ....Differences in gestational age distributions and in gestational age-specific stillbirth and infant mortality in the United States and Canada underscore substantial differences in healthcare services, population health status and health policy between the two neighbouring countries."
link
"The report, the second national scorecard from this influential health policy research group, shows that the United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. But it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York."
What side is really spreading propaganda?
link
The CATO institute also tries to undermine the negative effects of smoking. See here how CATO publishes a letter trying to do just that, and notice in the response how many things the get wrong:
link
Then let's look at how we are ranked in overall health, which doesn't take that into account: 72!
Did you forget to mention stupid lazy thinkers who like to use generalities?
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1299047025.html
Tell me, nmisery, what health insurance corporation do you work for? Are you getting paid to come in here and troll?...
I am curious however since you state Fox reported 6:1 favor for those opposing the healthcare bill, what was MSNBC's ratio?
Im certainly not saying since MSNBC slants to the left it's somehow okay. I for one would love to see the new report the news & let me come to my own conclusions on how I feel about an issue rather than telling me what is am supposed to feel. I don't need any talking points memo I think for myself. Throughout my adult years & haven't cared for the democratic party but I am certainly not impressed with the Rebulican party right now either. Both groups have forgotten what & who they are there for.
I'm SHOCKED... SHOCKED I tell you.. Only 6:1?
.
Somebody's slipping..:)
.
.
Here's an interview with Rachel Maddow that's pretty decent.
On the radio interview, he went into a little more depth regarding the "code words" used by the GOP hypnotists, and the Pavlovian appeal they have on the far right base.
It helps to understand the appeal of some of this stuff. While some of us may look at Sarah Palin, and say "WTF?", there are other Americans who have a deep emotional response. If you're confused by those "grass roots activists" at town halls seeming to have nervous breakdowns as they cry that they want their country back, it's all been very carefully planned, the indoctrination has been going on for decades.
It's not just racism, it's a mythology centered on a white, Christian,redneck America, a world that seems to be crumbling to the teabaggers.
Check the comments below the video. I like that a couple believe Schaeffer is "certifiably insane" or "Hitler" for explaining the propaganda that he was directly involved in starting.
Coded messages?! Dog whistle codes?! Maddow has gone over the edge! I actually had a grudging respect for her, but this takes the cake.
As for the voluble Mr. Schaeffer, I can see he is the product of an evangelist. I can't take anyone seriously that quotes Bart Simpson though. I admit I don't know much about this man but his claims of his daddy inventing the religious right movement from a book no one has read seems a little self serving as he himself is pimping a book no one will read.
The fact remains the only people arrested for violence in this debate that Maddow and Schaeffer are divining have been left wing union goons.
Keep a sharp ear out for CODE WORDS folks. It is a sign. As for me, I'm listening to Laura...oh just got a code word...must...go...commit...unspeakable...act............
And I don't take anyone seriously who can't quote Bart Simpson.
left wing union goons
Har!
BTW...I'm the one who flies the black helo's....better keep a weather eye out Col...you never know who's hovering above!
You're not supposed to recognize them. Just to react emotionally.
Probably likes his chicken spicey too.
I did hear Harry Reid say a Code Word yesterday. EVILMONGERS! Yes, I'm now part of the EVILMONGERS listening for the secret Code according to Maddow!
Y'all are too funny...if you weren't so dangerous.
BTW...found any examples of little Town Hall grannies committing acts of violence yet chicken hauler? NO?
O'Donnell had this woman on the show (you may have seen it), and although I felt a bit sorry for her , it was funny. As sure of herself as she was at the town hall, jabbing her finger and parrotting right wing talking points, she seemed a bit less confident as O'Donnell asked her to continue with her logic.
He asked, for example, if she would like to get rid of the socialist medicare. She did some shoulder-shrugging and eye-rolling, then insisted that she didn't like words being put in her mouth.
I think she was a good rep for the teabaggers. Forceful and passionate while reading the instructions they've been given to scream at town halls, frightened and insecure when given the opportunity to answer yes or no questions about their own personal opinions, or given the opportunity to engage in some independent thinking.
I do see wingnuts often asking the question "Where in the Constitution does it say free health care is a right ??". This is considered clever to people who think our government gives us rights, as opposed to deciding which ones to limit.
None of these things they're screaming really mean anything. "I want my country back!!", "We're going down the wrong track !!", "This isn't the America I grew up in!!!" are just emotional outbursts from hayseeds who still haven't accepted the fact that most Americans figured out that the black guy was a much better candidate than the old guy & the crazy lying "Christian" from Alaska.
The legislative branch of government is made up of the Congress and government agencies, such as the Government Printing Office and Library of Congress, that provide assistance to and support services for the Congress. Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress has two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids...
You should know clueless when you see it, such as when you look in the mirror each morning.
Obama has none because the bills are being written BY CONGRESS.