About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews, Blitzer uncritically cited Giuliani ad without noting his use of "meaningless" stat, according to cancer expert

October 30, 2007 5:44 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, and Chris Jansing each uncritically aired or reported on a Rudy Giuliani radio ad in which Giuliani claims that when he had prostate cancer, his "chance of surviving ... in the United States, 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine." However, a post on washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain" and that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease." Neither Matthews nor Blitzer nor Jansing noted Giuliani's use of "meaningless" -- according to a cancer research expert -- statistics.

34 Comments

On the October 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews uncritically aired part of a radio ad for Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in which Giuliani claims that when he had prostate cancer, his "chance of surviving ... in the United States, 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine." But an October 30 entry by Michael Dobbs on washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain." Dobbs wrote that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease," adding, "About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year" in both countries. Dobbs quoted Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute, saying, "When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless." Dobbs also wrote:

Brantley Thrasher, chairman of the Department of Urology at the University of Kansas, said it was "impossible to say" on the basis of the statistics whether a prostate cancer patient had a better chance of surviving under a "capitalistic" or "socialistic" medical system.

Moreover, the author of the article that the Giuliani campaign cited in support of the ad is reportedly a Giuliani campaign adviser.

The Fact Checker awarded the Giuliani ad "four Pinocchios," the worst rating on its fact-checking scale.

On the October 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer also uncritically reported claims in the ad, and on the October 30 edition of MSNBC Live, host Chris Jansing aired part of the ad; neither Blitzer nor Jansing noted Giuliani's citation of "meaningless" survivability rates. After airing the clip, Jansing turned to CNBC chief Washington correspondent and Wall Street Journal senior contributing writer John Harwood, who said the ad was "a smart shot" at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

The Fact Checker post explained:

More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the "survivability" statistics.

In the United States, there has been a big emphasis since the early 1990s on early screening through PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing. Five-year survivability rates have increased simply because men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at a very preliminary stage of a slow-developing disease. If you are diagnosed early on, your chances of surviving for another five years are close to 100 percent. Britain is several years behind the United States in the widespread use of PSA testing.

The post concluded:

Rudy Giuliani is simply wrong when he claims that his chances of surviving prostate cancer are almost twice as high in the United States as in England, under a "socialized" medical system. The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York.

Additionally, as ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog reported, "[T]he data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government." According to the blog, "In releasing the ad, the Giuliani campaign cited statistics published in an article in the Summer 2007 issue of City Journal," which "was written by David Gratzer, a physician who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and is a healthcare adviser to the Giuliani campaign." Neither Matthews nor Blitzer nor Jansing noted Gratzer's reported connection to Giuliani's campaign.

Matthews asserted of Giuliani's ad, "Boy, that is classic Live Free or Die, self-reliance, the Granite State." Addressing Washington Post staff writer Perry Bacon, Matthews said: "[T]his is like mainlining right into that sort of psychology of New Hampshire, which is, 'Leave me alone. I don't trust socialism.' Is it going to work in these days, when people are really challenged on health care?" Matthews went on to ask, "[I]n the America of today, in the Republican world, is it still safe to run against, quote, 'socialized medicine' as being enough?" Similarly, Blitzer said that in the ad, "Giuliani says his chances of survival would have dropped significantly under what he called a socialized health care system." By accepting Giuliani's suggestion that Democrats advocate "socialized medicine," Matthews and Blitzer echoed a conservative talking point. Responding to Matthews, Bacon noted that "all the candidates are saying this. So it's not exactly -- it's not a very distinguishing message for Mayor Giuliani. I think [Republican presidential candidate] Mitt Romney -- in every debate, if you watch the Republicans, they all criticize Britain and France, [Democratic presidential candidates] Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton for having this sort of idea of sort of much more government-mandated health care."

Indeed, since Clinton announced her American Health Choices Plan, numerous media outlets have allowed Romney to characterize Clinton's plan as "socialized medicine," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. In fact, contrary to the "socialized medicine" claim, Clinton's plan would require individuals to have health insurance, provide tax credits to help families cover their costs, and offer a choice of coverage from private insurers, Medicare, and the system currently available to government employees.

From the October 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: I think he's the best possible news for Rudy Giuliani, because if he can thump Romney on Iowa, with Mike Huckabee, then he can do well in New Hampshire and really get a bandwagon going. Here, by the way, is the latest radio ad from Rudy Giuliani up in the Granite State of New Hampshire.

GIULIANI [audio clip]: I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer -- and thank God I was cured of it -- in the United States, 82 percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine. You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat.

Government has never been able to reduce costs. Government never increases quality. We have the best health care system in the world. We just have to make it better.

MATTHEWS: Boy, that is classic Live Free or Die, self-reliance, the Granite State. Perry, this is like mainlining right into that sort of psychology of New Hampshire, which is, "Leave me alone. I don't trust socialism." Is it going to work in these days, when people are really challenged on health care?

BACON: I don't know. I mean, the problem with that message is -- I understand what the idea is -- that all the candidates are saying this. So it's not exactly -- it's not a very distinguishing message for Mayor Giuliani. I think Mitt Romney -- in every debate, if you watch the Republicans, they all criticize Britain and France, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton for having this sort of idea of sort of much more government-mandated health care.

MATTHEWS: And does it work? Perry, I'm not going to let you go here. I'm not going to let you go. Is that a -- in the America of today, in the Republican world, is it still safe to run against, quote, "socialized medicine" as being enough -- and that's what Rudy Giuliani's doing there?

BACON: I think it is a good message. I actually do think it is a good message for where he is in New Hampshire particularly, yes.

MATTHEWS: Jill?

JILL ZUCKMAN (Chicago Tribune Washington bureau correspondent): But Chris, it's not any different than any other Republican candidate. And he's -- what he's doing is he's continuing to run against Senator Clinton essentially. And the question is, whether voters are going to -- that's going to help Republican voters decide among the Republican primary candidates.

From the October 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: On our "Political Ticker" this Monday, Republican Rudy Giuliani is highlighting his successful battle against prostate cancer in a new presidential campaign ad.

In the new radio spot, set to air in New Hampshire, Giuliani says his chances of survival would have dropped significantly under what he called a socialized health care system. That's seen as a shot at his Democratic rival -- their proposals for universal health care in America.

From the 12 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on October 30:

JANSING: Well, let's talk about Rudy Giuliani's new radio ad. A lot of people talking about this because he uses his own experience with prostate cancer to address that same issue -- health care.

GIULIANI [audio clip]: My chance of surviving prostate cancer -- and thank God I was cured of it -- in the United States, 82 percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine. You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat.

JANSING: Who is Giuliani taking a shot at there?

HARWOOD: Well, guess what? He's taking a shot at Hillary Clinton, and it's a smart shot, I think. Personalizing it, talking about his own vulnerability there, is something that is useful for Rudy Giuliani, especially since there are some times he comes across with a bit of an edge, as a little, maybe, too tough, a little of that sort of New York brashness doesn't always serve him well.

That's a way to soften it a little bit while getting in that dig against what he calls socialized medicine. Of course, Hillary Clinton says it's nothing of the kind. She's talking about preserving the private insurance system.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by brutusmaximus (October 30, 2007 5:59 pm ET)
         

      However, a post on washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain" and that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease." - MM summary

      A post on the WashingtonPost.com blog is Media Matter's evidence?  How pathetic.  

      Who in their right  mind would rather get cancer treatment in England than in the United States? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (October 30, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
           

        Yeah I wonder how many Americans go to Britain for cancer and avoid these great hospitals

        http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/best-hospitals/search.php?spec=ihqcanc

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (October 31, 2007 9:39 am ET)
             

          I've known people who went to some of the hospitals listed and others, considered the top hospitals in the country who were mistreated and misdiagnosed.

          My first wife was treated at one of the finest Ivy League hospitals and through a doctors negligence (the best doctor in his field on the East Coast at the time) spent the last seven months of her life completely paralyzed.

          My life was recently saved at the same hospital that misdiagnosed my wife's first husband which led to his death.

          On any given day, in any hospital, in any country, you put your life into the hands of people who you hope are having a good day.

          We all have our bad days, but most of us don't work in fields where our bad day will ruin lives.

          If you make it out of the hospital, in better shape than you went in, you should consider yourself lucky.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (October 31, 2007 10:40 am ET)
               

            We're glad that you're here and recovering from your surgery.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (October 31, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
                 

              Thank you, Mary. I missed being here, but I'm doing great.

              I'm just trying to not let any of the neo-con bull get me all worked up until I'm 100 % better.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 30, 2007 6:25 pm ET)
           

        As factual support for the mayor's claim, the Giuliani campaign cited an article that appeared in the "City Journal," published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative New York think tank, slamming the Canadian and British systems of "socialized" medicine. The article provides no sources for its assertions about five-year survivability rates from prostate cancer.

        Experts from the National Cancer Institute and the Departments of Urology at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Kansas agreed that Giuliani's figures were way out of date, if they were ever accurate at all. The latest official figures for five-year "survivability" rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England

        More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the "survivability" statistics

        Who needs a little thing like facts!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (October 30, 2007 9:08 pm ET)
             

          You mean like the little fact stated above that Britian is about 6 years behind the US in early screening? 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (October 30, 2007 9:09 pm ET)
               

            Make that "several years behind."  My bad!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2007 7:51 am ET)
                 

              The several year lag time would be the lag between the U.S. developing the newest screening/treatment techniques, and the socialized countries using them.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (October 31, 2007 10:44 am ET)
                   

                Here's some statistics from Germany, another country with "socialized medicine":

                http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/441

                Overall, 5- and 10-year relative survival rates were approximately 99% and 95%; that is, excess mortality compared with the general population was as low as 1% and 5% within 5 and 10 years following diagnosis, respectively. Two-thirds of patients were diagnosed with well or moderately differentiated localized/regional prostate cancer, and among these patients, 5- and 10-year relative survival rates were above 100% (indicating the lack of any excess mortality) at all ages.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 30, 2007 11:54 pm ET)
               

            Rudy's radio ad was not correct. Matthews and Wolf as journalists have an obligation to the public to find out if the ad is factual before repeating it as if it's factual.

            Rudy's ad was simply a signal to the health-care corporate giants that he would not be making changes to our health-care system and their profits were safe. If Rudy's ad wanted to discuss the difference between how the US treats prostate cancer and how England does, he would have done a lot more research instead of simply using a 'a conservative think tank'. He did not cause facts were not the point he was trying to make, safe profits for the health-care corporate giants was his point.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Pithaughn (October 30, 2007 6:26 pm ET)
           

        Brut, I guess the knee jerk answer would be ,USA,USA,USA. But the underlying issue is the lack of health care in the USA for 10's of millions of people. Should the goverment have a role in providing health care to those who are'nt getting it now? For instance, if you read the entire enty, you will see that early screening is a great way to raise survival rates. So, to me anyway, a goverment program that provides early detection would save alot of lives and money. I do not get all hung up on the word socialised medicine. The current system of putting profits ahead of peoples health has had plenty of time to succeed and has not. I would like to try something else. As one who has been turned down for insurance, I am in favor of a system where I am gauranteed some sort of coverage, and I pay based on income. Which will be in the $1,200/month range. The main problem with the insurance system we have now is that the young and healthy are cherry picked out of group health care plans, resulting in older sicker pools having to pay more and more.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2007 8:06 am ET)
             

          So, to me anyway, a goverment program that provides early detection would save alot of lives and money.

          Pith,

          Those programs exist.  Call the CDC (1-800- CDC-INFO) for info. 

          A PSA test costs less than $50.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (October 31, 2007 6:23 am ET)
           

        A blog specific to fact checking for one of the major newspapers in America? One which was right as other posters noted? It is YOU that is pathetic

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (October 30, 2007 7:02 pm ET)
         

      The bigger question is whether Rudy Giuliani had health insurance which paid for his diagnosis and treatment.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Salamandastron (October 30, 2007 7:06 pm ET)
         

      Giuliani is often a little careless with his facts.  But what he's saying in this case is largely accurate -- the U.S. does have the best healthcare system in the world -- but that's for those who can afford it, generally those with employer-sponsored health plans.  Unfortunately, no tax credit for private insurance is going to insure those who can't pay for it at any price. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by spooky3 (October 31, 2007 11:31 pm ET)
           

        That's not factually correct. The US isn't even first for those who are covered. Here's one site turned up by a quick web search, but I know there are more recent studies with similar findings.

         

        http://cthealth.server101.com/Old%20Universal%20Health%20Care/united_states_spends_most_on_health,_but_france_no__1_in_treatment.htm 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldnegri6418 (October 30, 2007 7:26 pm ET)
         

      Rudi has created a myth about himself and "terrorism", now it's a myth about his health care. The survival rate in UK over the past 5 years has been 74.4%, and is rising. A good 30% more than Rudy claimed. Of course, Rudy and the Repubs won't stop at a little thing like the truth when they set out to play the "socialized medecine" game. Ironically, Rudy's health care insurance was, at the time, paid for by taxpayers, and it was a European doctor who pioneered the procedure he used. And finally here in the US, as elsewhere, the majority of people treated for prostate cancer do so under a single-payer universal health care system: Medicare. Just as for "9/11", Rudy is a phoney here too.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by placitasroy (October 30, 2007 9:18 pm ET)
         

      Rudy Ghouliani’s new radio ad states that survival rates in the US for prostate cancer such as he had was 82%, but that in England it was 44%. What a BALD FACE LIE!

        The FIRST Goggle hit for “Prostate cancer survival rates, england,” (at 10:00 MDT 10,30,2007) yielded this: “Cancer Research UK : Prostate Cancer survival statistics Prostate cancer survival trends. The relative five-year survival rate for men diagnosed in England in 2000–01 was 71%, compared with only 31% for men ... info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/  - 30k -”   Going into that link, the chart shows an 83% survival rate for men his age.  Rudy’s “error” was nearly 100% wrong! And this guy is the ‘publicons’ poll leader?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2007 7:46 am ET)
           

        The survival rates for what HE had were 82% and 44%.  The overall survival rate in the U.S. is 99% according to the American Cancer Society.

        You have to compare apples to apples. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (October 31, 2007 10:49 am ET)
             

          Giuliani not only got his facts wrong, he picked England, which has universal coverage but doesn't have its act together as well as other European countries such as Norway, Sweden and Germany.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jumboburrito (October 31, 2007 3:12 pm ET)
             

          Brutus:"The overall survival rate in the U.S. is 99% according to the American Cancer Society."

          Actually the hyperlink you provided did not say that the "the overall survival rate in the U.S. is 99%". What the article said was:

          "Overall, 99% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer survive at least 5 years."

          Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (October 31, 2007 12:31 pm ET)
         

      The real issue isn't which country has the best healthcare.

      It's all about access.

      Rudy the demagogue knows this too.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (October 31, 2007 9:32 pm ET)
           

        Access? Local hospitals offer free/low cost screening a couple of times a year (each) for things like Prostate Cancer, Breast Cancer and others. Treatment? That may be a different story, that I don't have the facts for, but why would they offer the screenings if there was not some mechanism in place to provide some treatment. Or is it, "I'm sorry, you have cancer, go home and die."? We can find examples of callous insurance companies, we can find examples of fraud in the Medicare/Medicaid systems, and if we dig deep enough, we can find positive things happening also.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DEMS_SOL (October 31, 2007 12:39 pm ET)
         

      So a posting on an obscure blog by a single source challenges a statistic  and the news networks don't pick it up.  Yet hundreds of scientists disagree with the Al Gore take on global warming and those scientists have no credibility.

      And this passes for an example of conservative media? You guys are floundering in your own foolishness.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by winston smith 2 (October 31, 2007 1:39 pm ET)
           

        Obscure blog? fact check?

        How do you feel about the English governments figures?

        "The British government’s National Statistics Web site lists prostate cancer survival from 1999 to 2004 at 74.4 percent. The American Cancer Society says 99.9 percent of Americans survive prostate cancer.".......From the "obscure" blog.

        Why don't you fact check it for your self?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 31, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
           

        WC4ME says "hundreds of scientists disagree with Al Gore on global warming."

        No, about a dozen scientists disagree with Al Gore.  And most of them are on the payroll of some oil company sponsored think tank.

        WC spews the kind of wildly inaccurate garbage that has left the Con party in shambles.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by winston smith 2 (October 31, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
         

      You can talk about anecdotal stuff all day long. And you can compare misleading faulted apples to oranges stats if you like too.

      But the bottom line is that we spend twice as much per person on health care as the europeans do. And we are less satisfied with the care we get.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 31, 2007 4:47 pm ET)
           

        Well said Winston...

        Could it be because 30% of our health care budget goes to administration--and finding new ways to deny people the care they need?

        Boy, that free market is really efficient isn't it?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (October 31, 2007 1:44 pm ET)
         

      The profit motive in the American healthcare system attracts the most talented doctors\experts in the field and gets the most advanced, up-to-date medical equipment. The problem with this for-profit mentality is that the majority of Americans do not have access to it because of the absurd prices. It it complete misinformation to say that our healthcare is the best in the world when many people cannot even take advantage of it. False advertising at best.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (October 31, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
         

      Factcheck.org have done a great job of pulling this lie apart...

       http://www.factcheck.org/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html

      It would also appear his campaign does not know the difference between the UK & England. 

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (October 31, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
           

        Keep talkin' Rudy...

        The commercials we're going to run are going to be fun!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by She (October 31, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
         

      This is slighty off topic, however, in all the noise about socialised medicine it seems that no-one realises that it's not compulsory.  As an Australian I can assure you that private health insurance is doing quite nicely thank you!

      My home state has had free public health since 1923 and the rest of the country had means tested fees for public hospitals until the 70s when Medibank/Medicare came into being.

      As a 10 year plus survivor of Stage 4 breast cancer I can assure you that the treatment I received was highly competent, timely (3pm Friday, diagnosed, 9 am Monday in consultation room at local hospital with specialist) and caring.

      I'm not saying that it's perfect.  A rapidly aging population is putting increasing strain on waiting periods for elective surgery although this is being addressed and there can be long waits in the Casualty Dept. if there has been a rash of serious cases bought in.  However, Medicare covers visits to or by GPs and and there are many clinics in urban areas that are open 24 hrs, seven days a week.

      Perhaps a closer look at some Antipodean health models is worth a look?

       

      cheers 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (October 31, 2007 6:28 pm ET)
         

      "Yeah I wonder how many Americans go to Britain for cancer and avoid these great hospitals"

      I dunno, probably not as many as used to go to the Soviet Union for eye surgery in the 80's.

      "The British government’s National Statistics Web site lists prostate cancer survival from 1999 to 2004 at 74.4 percent. The American Cancer Society says 99.9 percent of Americans survive prostate cancer."

      Don't confuse correlation with causality (a common mistake among the uneducated or the RW). It's very possible (for social/cultural reasons) that 40+ year old men in the UK are simply more resistant to asking their physician for preventative rectal exams than in the US.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.