Some folks haven’t seemed particularly receptive to anything that doesn’t advance their agenda (see town hall meetings and editorial pages across the country), but that hasn’t stopped a number of reporters from joining the fracas in an attempt to sort right from wrong.
First, columnist and reader representative Ted Diadiun of the Cleveland Plain Dealer attributes the difficulty in sorting facts from fiction to the current character of the reform process. Right now, with multiple bills working their way through the House and the Senate, none of which are in final form yet, which means that the very character of the reforms are unknown and in a constant state of flux.
Meanwhile, as Diadiun mentions, Plain Dealer Washington Bureau Chief Stephen Koff has done his best to answer a number of contentious questions as part of that paper’s Health Care Reform Fact Check series.
In a fiery rant on the Los Angeles Times opinion page, Neal Gabler accuses special interests (insurers) and politically motivated groups (Republicans) of propagating some of the most persistent falsehoods, but reserves some of his strongest criticism for the media outlets which uncritically report or even actively promote those “canards.” Praising the work of newspaper journalists especially, Gabler exhorts journalists to report the well-researched “truth,” not just the mere “facts” of what’s been said and what’s been controversial.
Hartford Courant columnist Jim Shea provides a few tongue-in-cheek platform points to help the Democrats to “start fighting fire with fire by running their own campaign of lies, distortions and scare tactics.” Highlights include “Seniors will be allowed the option of continuing resuscitation after they are buried” and “A health care plan being considered by Republicans would give insurance companies the right to harvest your organs if you can’t pay the bill.”
Writing for WebMD, AHCJ member Andy Miller tries to fight a stack of the pesky myths with simple, clear responses, providing an easy cheat sheet for those looking to make sense of the debate without investing hours of independent research.
