Archive for October, 2009

Cable News Is Bad for Democracy

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Very few people watch cable news but the people who do watch it are political professionals who set the political agenda for the country. As Matt Yglesias points out:

The three networks combined have an aggregate daytime audience of roughly zero. But even though the audience, looked at nationally, amounts to rounding error the networks are hugely popular among the tiny number of people who work in professional politics. Just like traders have CNBC and Bloomberg on in their offices, political operatives are constantly tuned in to what’s happening on cable news. The result is a really bizarre hothouse scenario in which people are basically watching . . . well . . . nothing, but they’re riveted to it. How things “play” on cable news is considered fairly important even though no persuadable voters are watching it. And cable news’ hyper-agitated style starts to infect everyone’s frame of mind, making it extremely difficult for everyone to forget that the networks have huge incentives to massively and systematically overstate the significance of everything that happens.

It is no wonder people are turned off by politics. Much of what goes on is trivial but you’ve got the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Bill O’Reilly shouting and carrying on like its the end of the world.

The fact is, most people don’t care and don’t watch. After all, you can watch crazy people shouting at each other for free on any street corner in a U.S. city.

But it is not good in a democracy if most of the public finds politics a meaningless display of phony outrage.

The Limits of Health Care Reform

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

The current proposals for health-care reform being negotiated in Congress are better than what we have. But even if we should get health care with a public option and adequate subsidies, cost containment will probably be only at the margins.

As Kevin Drum points out:

  • We pay our doctors about 50% more than most comparable countries.
  • We pay more than twice as much for prescription drugs, despite the fact that we use less of them than most other countries.
  • Administration costs are about 7x what most countries pay.
  • We perform about 50% more diagnostic procedures than other countries and we pay as much as 5x more per procedure.

We can jabber all we want about incentives and greed and systemic waste, but the bottom line is that if we want to do anything more than nip around the edges, we’d have to pay doctors and nurses less, pay pharmaceutical companies less, pay insurance companies less (or get rid of them entirely), pay hospitals less, and pay device makers less.  That’s a lot of very rich and powerful interests who will fight to the death to prevent any serious cost cutting, and it’s why Obama and the Democrats in Congress have largely chosen to buy them off instead.

It is likely that, even if health care reform passes, we will be grappling with costs for many years and will have to constantly revisit the politics of health care reform in order to get universal coverage with substantial cost containment.

Faux News

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

The Obama Administration has started criticizing Fox News for their obvious biases suggesting it is no longer an bona fide news organization but is instead a political organ of the Republican Party.

Eric Boehlert has the empirical evidence supporting this claim:

And I’m sorry, but the Fox News defense that it’s a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of “news” team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of “news” team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research — typo and all? What kind of “news” team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)

As Boehlert argues:

The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman’s agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players –not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition — because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It’s a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.

Indeed. I don’t understand why other media organizations find it in their self-interest to ignore the obvious. One would think that loss of credibility on the part of Fox News would improve their market share.