By Rich Tucker
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Journalism is traditionally known as the “fourth estate,”
because journalists sat apart from the three estates that made up parliament.
They weren’t simply scribes, writing down everything that happened there. They
would also report on whether the lawmakers were following through on their
promises. That would allow voters to decide whether lawmakers were making
sensible policy decisions.
Of course, it also meant that journalists often ended up
opposed to the lawmakers, because they would be reporting that the lawmakers
were not following through on their promises, or that the programs the
lawmakers implemented didn’t work. They would “speak truth to power.”
They don’t seem quite so opposed to policymakers anymore.
Consider the big ObamaCare rollout. On Oct. 1, everyone
across the country was supposed to be able to go to healthcare.gov and begin
enrolling in a government-approved insurance plan. Oh, and by the way: the law
now says everyone must have insurance within three months. So many people no
doubt felt the need for speed.
It didn’t happen. “Visitors to the site have endured long
wait times, error messages and glitches impeding registration, which is
necessary to see available insurance plans and prices,” TIME magazine admitted.
The federal government won’t, or can’t, say how many people have actually
managed to enroll.
Needless to say, many journalists seem taken aback. As
recently as June, The Atlantic offered a breezy account of the excellent work
being done to set up the site. “The new Healthcare.gov will fill a yawning gap
in the technology infrastructure deployed to support the mammoth law,” Alex
Howard wrote, “providing a federal choice engine for the more than 30 different
states that did not develop their own health-insurance exchanges.” Instead, the
site has become a yawning gap, swallowing the valuable time of countless users.
National Review’s Charles Cooke provides a nice wrap up of journalists who were
happy to go along with the Administration’s claim that things would be just
fine.
It isn’t simply ObamaCare.
At his most recent news conference, President Obama faced
reporters for more than an hour. But as Andrew Malcolm notes, he wasn’t asked
any difficult questions about the Park Service going out of its way to close
the World War II Memorial. He wasn’t asked why he opposed raising the debt
ceiling when he was a senator, but favors raising it now (after his
administration has added roughly $10 trillion in debt).
The reporters know “he wants to talk about the shutdown
and the evil Republicans' refusal, so far, to cave to his demands,” Malcolm
writes. “And so, to a person, they ask him about that and the process.”
And that’s become the big problem with reporters in
Washington: They’re focused on the “process.” Return to ObamaCare for a moment.
When the bill was being debated in 2009, any reporter could have read it and
reported what it said.
The president was making specific claims: That Americans
could keep their insurance if they liked it, that the bill would save families
$2,500. These claims should have been checkable. Compare them with what’s in
the bill and find out.
But that sort of journalism is time-consuming. It was far
easier in 2009 to commission a poll. After all, all the major news organizations
have polling directors; might as well give them something to do. Then report
the poll results. Presto. There’s your story.
Such poll results would be meaningless, of course,
because the people being asked “Do you approve or disapprove of ObamaCare” have
no idea what it is they’re approving or disapproving of. It’s a popularity
contest, at a time when President Obama was somewhat popular.
There are more sources of information than ever. So
Reuters columnist Jack Schafer blames Americans for not taking it all in.
“Never before has so much raw and refined political intelligence been available
at such a low cost to citizens willing to buy a cheap computer and Web
connection,” he writes while reviewing the book Democracy and Political
Ignorance by Ilya Somin.
But that’s the classic sign of a failing operation: If
customers aren’t buying what you’re selling, blame the customers.
Maybe people aren’t paying attention because they’ve
realized that the majority of information being delivered through the major
outlets is biased. Those who care enough about a particular issue seek out
another viewpoint, while everyone else focuses on living their daily lives.
Americans aren’t dumb. They just recognize they aren’t
being served by the current fourth estate. When it improves, they’ll start
paying attention again.
No comments:
Post a Comment