ABC News tried, but Obama ruled on health care pitch
Let's make one thing clear right from the start: ABC News did not give President Barack Obama a free pass in its prime-time special Wednesday night to sell his plan for a radical overhaul of the health care system.
There were people in the town hall setting who asked pointed questions, and if you listened very closely, it was obvious after a while that Obama did not have any very good answers when it came to specifics. Furthermore, anchorman Charles Gibson, who moderated the discussion, asked solid follow-up questions of the president.
But, ultimately none of that mattered much, because the majority of viewers can't or don't listen very closely when such vast amounts of information, opinion and statistics are thrown around as they were Wednesday night on ABC. Television does not work like that. In the manner that TV does work, Obama had his way from early morning to latenight on ABC Wednesday to push his agenda for massive social change on healthcare. In short, he owned ABC's airwaves.
The president and his communication experts know that one of TV's deepest truths is to keep it simple. And Wednesday, they followed the same straightforward TV formula they used to sell their plans to radically transform the banking and auto industries earlier in the year.
It started on Good Morning America where Diane Sawyer asked plenty of well-researched and pointed questions ranging from how the government would pay for a new health care plan, to who would determine how care would be allocated. And while Obama's lips moved and sounds came out of his mouth in response, he answered almost none of her questions with hard specifics.
But that's part of his strategy -- few specifics as he creates the appearance of an overwhelming consensus on the need for quick and vast change. He held firm to one set of talking points that he hit over and over in almost every answer.
They go like this: We are in a crisis and the system is on the point of melting down altogether. Big changes have to be made fast or things are going to get much worse. I have a plan. Let's not argue about specifics now -- we'll work that out as we go along with the help and advice of the best experts. And I know who those experts are -- trust me.
That was what he said about the banking and auto industries, and that is he told Sawyer about health care Wednesday morning. It was also his message throughout the town hall special that extended from prime time into Nightline during late night.
And in that light, ABC News gave away the store in its very first question of the prime time special when Gibson asked all the participants in the so-called town hall meeting: How many of you agree with the president that we need to change our health care system?
When everyone in the room raised their hands, it was game, set, match to Team Obama. Thank you very much, ABC News, for letting the president use your airwaves to convince millions of American that if you disagree with the president about the need for massive change in our health care system, you are out of it.
How could all these smart people ABC News brought to the East Room of the White House be wrong, and you be right? And by the way, I think that unanimous show of hands says all that needs to be said about how effective ABC News was in bringing a truly diverse group of people to that room.
The TV news industry really does debase the concept of town hall meeting with staged events like the one on ABC Wednesday. At its core, the town hall concept involves citizens coming together, face-to-face discussing issues and making decisions in a democratic manner.
But with ABC's Questions for the President: Prescription for America, what we had was a group of people hand picked by executives from a giant corporation, Disney-ABC, to take part in an event for which hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads were sold. ABC gets the money, and the White House, which opened its doors for the event, gets to promote its agenda.
All the networks and cable channels do it, not just ABC. But what we saw on ABC last night exploits and debases the notion of town hall democracy. The discussion is driven by the dictates of prime-time television not enlightenment. When it's time to show the ads for shampoo and banks, all discussion stops no matter where it is headed.
One last word on Obama as The New Great Communicator: Even as he sounded an urgent call for collective change, he promised individuals in the audience that they need not worry because they won't necessarily have to be part of the change. "If you like what you have, you can keep it," he said over and over in a talking point that sounded reassuring as he said it, but seemed to defy logic when you thought about it.
There were a couple of Baltimore angles to the town hall telecast, but they were mostly footnotes to the major business being conducted between Obama and the American audience with only minor interference from ABC News.
One involved Hershaw Davis, Jr., a Baltimore nursing student, asking a good question as to how Obama plans to beef up primary care in his new plan. The answer was a vague one about better incentives for those practitioners who choose primary care rather than specialization.
The other local note: There were protesters outside WMAR-TV, the ABC affiliate in Baltimore, according to Channel 2's 11 p.m. newscast. Protesters picketed at ABC affiliates around the country in reaction to what they saw as the exclusion of Republicans and other voices of opposition to Obama's plan.
Comments
Sir,
It was a conversation to help push along our national healthcare debate. I pray our questions will help our leaders come up with a productive solution.
Thank you for helping to continue this conversation.
Respectfully,
Hershaw Davis, Jr.
President
Maryland Association of Nursing Students
Dear Mr. Davis: As I said in the post, you question was an excellent one. I am glad you got to ask it. I wish the president had been more specific in answering it. The vague promises about incentives sounded much like what he promised teachers and others. PS Were you ID's correctly by ABC? I thought you were introduced as being connected with Johns Hopkins, but I received a press release earlier in the day on your appearance, and it said nothing about John Hopkins. The release also, though, said nothing about Maryland Association of Nursing Students. But if you could clarify that minor point for me, it would be great. Thanks.Z
Posted by: Hershaw Davis, Jr. | June 25, 2009 1:12 AM
Very accurately written article in terms of quantity and terms of the discussion tonight. Though I don't believe your discussion which follows the opening paragraph is very well supported.
I believe the majority of your article and the reality of the situation is that ABC did give a pass to the President, because though they may have asked specific questions they never held him to answering them. He spoke in huge generalities strumming the same cords over and over and never answering questions specifically. For example early in the Nightline special he stated that Medicare/Medicaid are good programs and the elderly like them. Yet he fails to mention that every private insured individual is picking the shortfall, since Medicare only covers 2% of the typical hospital bill.
Posted by: Ted from MO | June 25, 2009 1:14 AM
Obama proved he is mortal. By refusing to answer the questions last night, he exposed himself as just another politician.
As for the details, I think more folks are interested in the level of service they can expect rather than how it will be paid for. Unfortunately he refused to answer those questions and still wants us to blindly go along with whatever the government comes up with.
It reminds me of "weapons of mass destruction", going to war in Iraq, and the aftermath we will be dealing with for years.
Posted by: shannondoodle | June 25, 2009 2:43 AM
I personally thought that President Obama was relatively superb in his presentation on the ABC program tonight. I found his arguments convincing and inspiring. My wife has a pre-exiting condition and will be soon off COBRA. She/we have a need for the public option to "keep the insurance companies honest." But the President did make one huge gaff, that being that "Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal debt." Of course that is not true. Under George W. Bush, the Iraq war had to be the single biggest driver of debt, and, according to information before me about the 2009 budget, $542 billion is budgeted for the Pentagon and another $196 is budgeted for the Iraq War. Medicare at this point pretty much pays for itself; Medicaid is, of course, a government program shared by the federal government and the states that has no real "premium" basis. Federal debt occurs when the federal government fails to "collect" enough money to cover its spending. Blame on the "entitlement" programs is commonly misplaced.
How nice it would be for the President to better understand that Medicare, Medicaid and, of course, Social Security, are NOT the major drivers of federal debt.
Posted by: George Fulmore | June 25, 2009 3:43 AM
I didn't watch all day so I can't speak on everything you wrote, but when you say, "they followed the same straightforward TV formula they used to sell their plans to radically transform the banking and auto industries earlier in the year," I feel compelled to remind you that they didn't sell those plans so much as they shoved them down our throats. You even kind of foreshadow what's coming in that regard by saying there either were no good answers or there was tap dancing around answers to questions that didn't exactly fit the sell job and how hard they hammered the talking points. We the people will not have a say in what's going to happen. The wheels are already in motion.
And no matter how great a job the White House did throughout the day detailing its nationalized health care plans, this to is just going to be shoved down our throats whether we like it or not anyway. So my problem is that we get these big fancy televised sell jobs and then the White House and Congress does whatever it wants, which generally doesn't amount to much, if anything, of what we were sold, and we all look like fools.
But making us look like fools is good for ratings, I imagine.
Posted by: brstevens | June 25, 2009 6:13 AM
When a blogs author limits discussion it is called censorship. When comments must be approved before posting, merit is lost. BTW any discussion as to why so many corporations in the health services operate without a tax liability??
Why BCBS appears as a Public charity on a state ag's charities listing???
BTW What is tax exempt status granted by the IRS??????????
Even though I am not sure what point you are trying to make, I did not edit a word of this comment. Are you complaing about pre-approval? No responsible media outlet would abandon that responsibility. Z
Posted by: JamesJoyce | June 25, 2009 6:49 AM
I have one bone to pick with your commentary: right after the President said, "If you like what you have, you can keep it," he added, at least once, that those people might not like what they have in 10 years when their premiums would have doubled or tripled. Apart from that, I would like to know how taxing employer benefits would actually work, but so far I've read or heard nothing to enlighten me. I only watched the first part of the program, but I agree that the President didn't really answer the questions I heard.
Posted by: Mary | June 25, 2009 7:03 AM
I too was disappointed in the "debate". There wasn't much debate. I gave up on the broadcast when President Obama didn't even directly answer the first pointed question from the MD. Gibson didn't ask a follow up after the President gave a mini speech (as he did after each question).
ABC could have called the show "A Debate About Healthcare" but instead they showed their bias by calling the show "Prescription for America."
Who really questions a prescription given by a doctor?
ABC had it's mind made up, this was a sales job, not a debate.
Hershaw, I also pray for good solutions from DC, but I'm not hopeful. You were used as prop in that charade, I hope it's somehow good for your career as a nurse and that you can help drive effective change where ever you're working.
Hello Mark, Thanks for the comment. You make a good point about the title and the use of the word 'prescription" -- questioning who would be the doctor writing that prescription. Very good point. I hope Mr. Davis will check back in and respond as to whether or not he felt like "a prop in a charade." I hope some of the many, many health professionals in the Baltimore-DC area will also weigh in. Thanks again. Z
Posted by: Mark Graban | June 25, 2009 9:01 AM
I thought Obama was okay, but not great because he doesn't have details to explain, yet. It's probably time for him to stop the campaigning until there is more definite outline for how reform is shaping up.
ABC was extremely disappointing because the questions and discussion seemed to all be the old arguments against any reform. I think the public and health industry has gotten beyond this first step and is ready to debate specific aspects. The Republicans might not have moved beyond this reality, but everyone else has. Maybe the president should have had a Town Hall with congressional Republicans, only so that the public could learn what reforms their representatives are preventing.
The Aetna honcho seemed extremely corporate. I wish someone had asked how much he pulls in salary and bonuses. There was no discussion of the profits the insurance industry bilks from the health industry, nor was there any disclosure over the lobbying that health industry players have done for decades to prevent government reforms.
Also, someone needs to give the clear message that the real changes being proposed will only affect the uninsured, underinsured and businesses that have escaped providing any health coverage for their employees. Everyone else should pay attention but not obstruct making progress. It seems that the people who have the most coverage already are doing the most screaming, selfishly holding on to what they have at the expense of the greater impact. They don't realize that they will be losing in the long run if they don't allow reform to proceed.
Hi Tim, Great point about the lack of discussion on profits. Great point. Maybe I was too kind to ABC News even as I chronicled its failure to help clarify and enlighten. Z
Posted by: Tim Kjer | June 25, 2009 9:21 AM
Far be it from me to squeak up in the face of an authority such as Mr. Zurawik. However, it seems to me that Mr. Obama was well prepared to deal with the subject before him.
Mr. Obama is an executive whose responsibilities include establishing principles, developing policy, implementation and accountability. The details are not his job, the overview is. The details are going to be worked out by experts in the field.
I would be concerned if he began to spout the details of his plan. His job is to define and refine the principles and the accountability of the plan. I saw him state those principles and that accountability repeatedly, clearly and effectively.
Obama is a pretty smart cookie. He's not likely to sign on to a plan that in the end, you and I and he cannot be proud of, cannot endorse, and will not stand up to the scrutiny of history.
I think an amazing thing happens when anyone, including a reporter, makes up his mind on a candidate or an issue. Everything about your guy or your issue becomes good and everything else is evil. Mr. Z's bias in opposition to Mr. Obama's plan is clearly in evidence in this piece. That' a real shame because this issue is too important to be marginalized as it is here, by a reporter’s smallness of mind and his bias.
The other thing about being an executive is that maybe the exec has more on his plate than simply this one issue. Maybe there’s a question or two about housing, banking, the auto industry, a couple of shooting wars, as well as a couple of issues concerning non shooting wars, the tax structure, and helping Malia with her homework.
As far as the pickets are concerned, good for them. However, if they had even the beginnings of a open mind, they would have sat down and listened to what concerns were being raised and what issues were being presented. However, they did not. They chose to attempt to divert attention away from the issue of health care reform by criticizing ABC and the president for holding the event. The picketing was a tactic. I’m sure those brilliant Republicans are even now planning their own event, probably on Fox, to counter the president’s assertions.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the right wing has been lamenting that Mr. Obama was going to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” and thereby bring about the ruination of talk radio.He didn’t. So, for 15 hours a week Limbaugh and his cronies rant their anti-Obama venom, and when Obama goes on the air for an hour and a half, you jackals begin to wail. You neglected to mention the irony of that.
I’m not in the tank for Obama, but I sure do have increasingly short shrift for witty clowns like Z and Hannity whose responsibilities extend no further than taking cheap pot shots at a person who in fact is working very hard on my behalf and who does have real responsibilities.
In Mr. Z’s piece there is not much information about the substance Mr. Obama did express. Mr. Z, as is usual, focused on style. So the critic criticized the lack of detail in a hit piece that was very short on the substance that was the object of the event, and long on diversionary detail that was irrelevant. I have absolutely no expectations from Mr. Z, and he did not let me down.
Style is exactly what the focus should be in a TV critique. Style is the substance of TV performance. Z
Posted by: davie163 | June 25, 2009 10:17 AM
I could not watch last night. The parts that I did watch, Obama did not answer any questions. I can answer some questions. You introduce a socialized plan into a capitalistic society and I can guarantee within ten years we will have the following:
A larger deficit (unless you plan on continuing to tax the rich, which means they will be better off moving to Europe and paying 15-20% in taxes).
Employers will stop providing health benefits to their employees (paying a fine is cheaper and easier then the hassle of providing health benefits)
As employers begin to stop offering healthcare, we will see a transition to a full government healthcare plan as private companies are forced out which will lead to doctor's getting paid less and therefore the best doctor's will move to other parts of the world where they can get paid a good amount.
After the government takes full control we will be forced to have every trip to the doctor for any service okayed by the government.
The bottom line is that this will dismantle private healthcare in this country and I don't know about you but I don't want to be told when and where I can see a doctor.
In order to fix the healthcare problem, I would suggest the following:
Stop illegal immigration and pass federal legislation limiting the amounts of malpractice lawsuits. These two items are what currently account for a majority of the high cost of healthcare and the amount the government is currently paying.
The other thing the government can do is to make health insurance a requirement (like auto insurance).
Posted by: Phil Wyatt | June 25, 2009 11:40 AM
The author said:
few specifics as he creates the appearance of an overwhelming consensus on the need for quick and vast change.
Every poll of the public and of the medical profession, in fact everyone except the insurance companies seems to agree that there is a need for quick and vast change. This is not anything that Obama has manufactured, this is everyone (except perhaps this author) recognizing that the system is broken and corrupt.
Posted by: Michaelc | June 25, 2009 3:33 PM
I thought Obama was superb. It seems to me that the President and media commentators such as Charles Gibson are on two different planets.
If I, and I'm sure millions of other people, understood precisely what the President was saying, why on earth can't the media grasp it.
Did the Reagan years dumb down the media population as well as the national public?
The President was not vague in the slightest. He knows exactly what he is doing. God, get off his back already.
Posted by: Ray Barcia | June 25, 2009 4:34 PM
When Obama said government-run health care would be "...more efficient", I SHOT MY MARTINI OUT MY NOSE - and shut the boob tube off.
Posted by: beaker55 | June 26, 2009 12:29 AM
The information you provided sounds good. There are good technicians and quality surgeon for hair restoration and different methods being applied for both men and women for hair loss treatment
Posted by: siva123 | June 26, 2009 7:44 AM
This is exactly why TV news reporting is losing credibility just as newspaper and radio ,media does: no one really wants to say the specifics on anything, since it would make them look bad from some angle, and they can lose supporters. This occurs on both sides of the media. I haven't seen the interviews until after I read your piece, but it was exactly as I imagined it would go, and I don't know what to say about that.
When I asked my sister if any form of media is somewhat objective, she told me she lost all faith in the media. This article just furthur cements that notion to me.
Posted by: Casey | June 26, 2009 10:46 AM
To a few posters who think we all agree with them...Not only Republicans and insurance companies are against government-run insurance. When you add together smaller-gov types from all parties as well as Independents, you find that there is a large percentage of the country that does not want gov't doing to health care what they've done to schools.
Posted by: jen | June 27, 2009 1:36 AM
Obama's 'Very Best Care' For His Own Family ABC Comment Largely Unimportant Elsewhere
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/06/27/obamas-very-best-care-his-own-family-abc-comment-strangely-unimportant-e
Posted by: StewartIII | June 27, 2009 2:41 AM
I can relate to Jen's comment about schools in a big way. Our school levy has failed four times just in the past two years. Now our school system is going to be taken over by the state. We have already suffered through drastic cuts in sports, pay to play, which costs about $185 per child per sport. We are paying a lot to have both of our kids in track. One of our daughter's could get a track scholarship for college so we have no choice but to pay for her to participate. Fortunately they let the ones who can't pay play. We work at a lot of fundraisers just to keep the sports program alive at all. They have cut teachers and more will be cut this year. We do not have busing for high school students many of whom are freshmen and cannot yet drive leaving the burden on grandparent's to transport children whose parents both work. I have seen some teens walking down a very dangerous four lane highway to school because they have no ride. We offer to pick them up when we pass by. This is an unfortunate reality of the economic times and people not being able to afford any more property taxes or taxes on their already stressed incomes. The state is coming into the school this summer to evaluate where we are at and it won't be good. We may have to consolidate with another school in the area. Government run schools are not good and I imagine healthcare would not be any better.
Posted by: Sherry T. | June 27, 2009 12:41 PM
Yeah, I loved Beaker's comment. That was great, I laughed. Unfortunately, I did not get to watch the ABC Obama health care pitch, so I can't comment on it.
Posted by: Sherry T. | June 27, 2009 12:45 PM
The current President's infomercial was no more than a PR program designed to move the current President's agenda. In essence, it was a one-sided campaign advertisement.
This is an extremely weighty issue in which millions of Americans oppose the President's flawed plan. Despite the cost of the current President's plan and its flaws, there was no counterweight to offer a differing view. At minimum, someone from the opposing side should have shared the floor with the current President to offer a differing viewpoint.
For me, what made this charade was the fact that a group opposed to socialized medicine offered to pay for advertising space to offer a differing opinion and ABC refused them. Were this truly a debate, certainly this would have been allowed.
The bigger question in all of this is where are the watchdogs? The press is a noble profession both protected by our Bill of Rights and essential for the preservation of our democracy. Only a disinterested press presenting unbiased information as well as both sides to a debate can truly fulfill this role. Instead, the press (sans Fox) have become the lapdogs to the left presenting propaganda as opposed to information. I suppose this is why Fox has become so popular.
Posted by: Mike D | June 30, 2009 4:20 PM