Health Reform Coverage, Then and Now: Not Much Difference
Even though it isn’t even 2012 yet, the media is in full election mode. Each broadcast is devoted to getting to know the candidates, or reporting new poll numbers, or dissecting how Candidate X’s move helped his campaign and why. In this frenzy of election (or, arguably, pre-election) fervor, sometimes individual issues get lost in the shuffle.
One of those is health care reform. If it is mentioned, it is in the context of Republicans at the debate vowing to repeal it, or some strategist mentioning how it will hurt Romney’s chances. But in doing so they are missing a major development: The Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging its Constitutionality. I personally think this is a pretty significant event that deserves more coverage than I’ve been able to find.
In their analysis of the 1993-4 health care debate, Jamieson and Capella argue that media coverage was focused on the game-like aspect of the debate, a tug-of-war between two sides, as elections are portrayed. In the coverage of the Supreme Court’s pending hearing, elements of this can certainly be found.
POLITICO focuses on a highly political aspect of the case- the recusal of two judges with well-known leanings in their decisions. “Liberal” Justice Kagan and “conservative” Justice Thomas are being called upon to recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. The POLITICO article details this in the context of opinion polls- yes, that’s right, opinion polls- about the court. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to have opinion polls about judges who are appointed and not elected specifically to avoid being swayed too much by public opinion. They should vote based on what the Constitution says and means, not by what the public wants them to believe it means. But that’s a bit off-topic. The point of it is, opinion polling is also how the media covers campaigns; they speculate about what a given tactic would do to those polling numbers, like how the article states that the 5 1/2 hours devoted to oral arguments (a record, incidentally) “may nevertheless help assuage public worries in ways that are institutionally beneficial to the court.” Does ‘institutionally beneficial’ mean “raise their standing in the polls?” In the context of the article is sure seems like it; it goes on to show how different decision margins (5-4 versus 6-3) would be perceived by the public.
In another instance, ABC news reports that one single Justice could be the deciding vote. They use the term “swing vote,” as they do for elections. This article also looks at his past record to try to predict how he will vote in this case in the kind of detail you might expect one to discuss the starting quarterback of an NFL team. While some of this may be warranted, a larger part of it is not, because focusing on this one Justice makes it seem as if the other 8 are guaranteed to vote a certain way (i.e., with a party), like the red state-blue state divide the media favors for election coverage.
Another point that Jamieson and Capella make is that, in 1993-4, “reporters’ focus on the strategy of the debate rather than on the substance deprived the public of useful information about health care reform.” The issue was confusing enough, and reporters did the public a disservice by not spelling out fact about the substance of the bill.
Although it’s a bit different in this case because the substance is already set, I still want to draw attention to it to make a specific point. As much as some critics decry new media for contributing to this kind of problem, I’ve found it can also help alleviate it. For instance, the Washington Post has an entire page on its website with links to interactive graphics to show people what the bill says and, in particular, what those things mean for them and their business. It is a best of both worlds scenario; people get information and, by presenting it in a fun and engaging way, the Post gets hits on its site. In this way, then, the argument can be made that the increased prominence of new media where such graphics can easily be made and passed around helped increase the publics’ knowledge about the bill’s provisions.
So, while some of the points made by Jamieson and Capella are no longer salient nearly a decade later, others are as true as ever. Which might be a little sad; shouldn’t these techniques, which the authors argue mean “the press... should share the blame for the failure of the process to yield a acceptable compromise” in 1993, have altered by now, to prevent those types of issues from recurring?
One of those is health care reform. If it is mentioned, it is in the context of Republicans at the debate vowing to repeal it, or some strategist mentioning how it will hurt Romney’s chances. But in doing so they are missing a major development: The Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging its Constitutionality. I personally think this is a pretty significant event that deserves more coverage than I’ve been able to find.
In their analysis of the 1993-4 health care debate, Jamieson and Capella argue that media coverage was focused on the game-like aspect of the debate, a tug-of-war between two sides, as elections are portrayed. In the coverage of the Supreme Court’s pending hearing, elements of this can certainly be found.
POLITICO focuses on a highly political aspect of the case- the recusal of two judges with well-known leanings in their decisions. “Liberal” Justice Kagan and “conservative” Justice Thomas are being called upon to recuse themselves for conflicts of interest. The POLITICO article details this in the context of opinion polls- yes, that’s right, opinion polls- about the court. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to have opinion polls about judges who are appointed and not elected specifically to avoid being swayed too much by public opinion. They should vote based on what the Constitution says and means, not by what the public wants them to believe it means. But that’s a bit off-topic. The point of it is, opinion polling is also how the media covers campaigns; they speculate about what a given tactic would do to those polling numbers, like how the article states that the 5 1/2 hours devoted to oral arguments (a record, incidentally) “may nevertheless help assuage public worries in ways that are institutionally beneficial to the court.” Does ‘institutionally beneficial’ mean “raise their standing in the polls?” In the context of the article is sure seems like it; it goes on to show how different decision margins (5-4 versus 6-3) would be perceived by the public.
In another instance, ABC news reports that one single Justice could be the deciding vote. They use the term “swing vote,” as they do for elections. This article also looks at his past record to try to predict how he will vote in this case in the kind of detail you might expect one to discuss the starting quarterback of an NFL team. While some of this may be warranted, a larger part of it is not, because focusing on this one Justice makes it seem as if the other 8 are guaranteed to vote a certain way (i.e., with a party), like the red state-blue state divide the media favors for election coverage.
Another point that Jamieson and Capella make is that, in 1993-4, “reporters’ focus on the strategy of the debate rather than on the substance deprived the public of useful information about health care reform.” The issue was confusing enough, and reporters did the public a disservice by not spelling out fact about the substance of the bill.
Although it’s a bit different in this case because the substance is already set, I still want to draw attention to it to make a specific point. As much as some critics decry new media for contributing to this kind of problem, I’ve found it can also help alleviate it. For instance, the Washington Post has an entire page on its website with links to interactive graphics to show people what the bill says and, in particular, what those things mean for them and their business. It is a best of both worlds scenario; people get information and, by presenting it in a fun and engaging way, the Post gets hits on its site. In this way, then, the argument can be made that the increased prominence of new media where such graphics can easily be made and passed around helped increase the publics’ knowledge about the bill’s provisions.
So, while some of the points made by Jamieson and Capella are no longer salient nearly a decade later, others are as true as ever. Which might be a little sad; shouldn’t these techniques, which the authors argue mean “the press... should share the blame for the failure of the process to yield a acceptable compromise” in 1993, have altered by now, to prevent those types of issues from recurring?