Everybody Missed The Story . . . For A Reason
I recently banged out a post commenting on a news source I still (kinda) trust, National Public Radio involving the "hidden" disability benefits story. I called it a "great piece of investigative journalism" without considering the flaws in the story. Worse, I didn't consider what I myself have been noticing for years now, that private forces have infiltrated NPR (and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR's parent organization which is connected to NPR) distorting the once excellent reporting as a result.
I here apologize to all who read that post of mine. I dropped the ball, and I am sorry. In my excitement over hearing former Pacific North West reporter Joffe-Walt, formerly of Tacoma's "public" station KPLU just an hour south and nestled in my parent's alma mater, I neglected to fact check her story. I blew it.
Though her points were often not completely inaccurate, they were presented in a misleading way that led listeners to some damning conclusions. For one misleading bit of info, let's review the graph I included, one that accompanied the Planet Money story notes.
This charts awarded disability. Ah, but note the title: "Annual Disability Awards for Former Workers. . . ." It turns out that:
. . . about 17 percent of disability beneficiaries worked in 2007. Their earnings were generally very low (about 4.8 percent had annual earnings of $1,000 or less), but that doesn’t justify the reporter’s unequivocal characterization of all disability beneficiaries as non-workers.
This is never mentioned in the story. Also, what it does not reveal is the rate of disability applications compared to the rate of awards. We can find that here.
Important to notice here is that the two graphs don't track each other perfectly because they are measuring different things. The Planet Money graph tracks the awarded numerically; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities graph tracks both awards and applications per 1,000 workers, meaning that workforce growth will distort the final track of both those who apply and those awarded. When tracking disability, I feel representing award recipients as a percentage of the workforce to be more accurate.
That said, I was impressed by the number of denials to disability insurance. A radio piece that described a vast "disability-industrial complex" really should emphasize how many are denied this benefit, don't you think? Yes, awards are rising; but then again, so are applicants, and by a much, much larger margin.
There's another element here; aging. Yes, the PM piece touched on the age of some of the insured, but only just. Here we learn that: "While the working-age population as a whole grew by just 25 percent from 1990 to 2011 . . . the number of insured workers over age 50 more than doubled. So, as the baby boom - the generation born between 1946 and 1964 - has moved squarely into its high-disability years, it has driven up the DI rolls." [Emphasis in the original.]
I won't rehash all the other errors, either plainly factual or merely misleading. I'll get down to the meat.
It involves sponsorship.
I know most of you probably don't give a rat's hindquarters for my rage against the pernicious effect of advertiser-paid "news" content. Here, that rage is not misplaced, not at all. For example, PM used to have an exclusive sponsor, Ally Bank, a rebranded hold over from General Motors (formerly GMAC). This is a conflict of interest, an investigative news organization accepting money from an organization they cover. If you want silly hand wringing and "Oh, noes", head over to this post from the NPR ombudsman. "As news organizations like NPR fight for financial security, any new or special funding arrangements need close examination. . . ."
Fight for financial security? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was formed to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in commercial broadcasting! This "financial security" nonsense was inflicted upon the CPB during the Bush II years, I firmly believe, as a path to tie the CPB to sponsors. I've said this before and I'll repeat it here: One need not demonstrate a conspiracy between the money's distributors and money's recipients to know that influence is felt. After all, PM has operated since 2008 . . . and they have yet to define what money is. Every time they get close, they express disbelief and just about shit themselves, then change the subject as quickly as possible.
Today's PM sponsor? Why, that would be the Lincoln Financial Group . . . wait for it . . . a business that happens to provide among its products disability insurance!
It turns out as well that Joffe-Walt's sources on this story are more than a little suspect. The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing "think tank" that helps shove the Overton Window sharply to the right. Among its strategies, it publishes books and other material that advocate private enterprise solutions to "problems" it can identify. A member, Richard Burkhauser, wrote a book on the topic of disability insurance. From the DailyKos piece, it turns out that Burkhauser bragged about his involvement in sourcing the PM money piece at an AEI forum in a video AEI produced. The video, strangely, no longer seems to load. Hmmm. Still:
According to someone in attendance, over lunch at the forum, Burkhauser went further, and claimed that NPR’s series actually originated when Joffe-Walt called him up, saying she wanted to base it on his book, “The Declining Work and Welfare of People With Disabilities,” published by none other than ... the American Enterprise Institute. The book pushes “fundamental changes in the way disability is insured and managed.” The forum was titled “Disability insurance: Inherent problems, practical solutions, and action for reform.”
Chana Joffe-Walt never cited her sources for her piece. Strangely, neither did she include interviews of anyone actually working in the Federal Disability Insurance program. That should have been a red flag for anyone listening (including myself). There is one strange connection that should be investigated, though: Lincoln Financial provides disability insurance for the American Enterprise Institute.
Follow the money, yet again.
This money connection is something that should be understood by anyone absorbing news here in the United States or wondering why the citizens of this once great country act so strangely and hold such weird conclusions on any number of issues. Though it is often repeated, the US news media is not by any means "liberal" or even slightly left-leaning. News from our commercial and even "public" media has shifted farther and farther to the right of the political spectrum as the years have progressed. The shift is so drastic, in fact, that often centrist pieces get labeled "liberal" simply because the rest of the media has shifted to drastically.
It's sad, because good reporting takes money. CPB used to provide that money, and quite effectively. They have since been compromised when Congress inflicted them with conflicts of interest, forcing them to accept money from those on whom they report. Though the amounts from this "enhanced sponsorship" are small, they are effective in reigning in the last bastion of professional reporting left in the country. NPR was a bargain, spending less on its entire news system than CBS paid for Katie Couric to be anchor. Still, for some of that money to come from private sources has, it is evident, decreased the quality of their reporting to, well, CBS levels.
I don't have a solution to this monied quagmire. Yes, CPB should again free itself from all perceived conflicts of interest; but that would require legislation in a time when getting any good reforms past are blocked by-you guessed it!-monied interests. And the situation is probably only going to get worse, especially now that the Kocktopus is making a bid for the L. A. Times.
Expect a future filled with more "stories" that people "missed." Despite the slashing and burning of social safety net programs, there are still a few out there that an Overton Window shoving corporate media can privatize the shit out of for big, big profit.
X-posted to talk_politics.
I here apologize to all who read that post of mine. I dropped the ball, and I am sorry. In my excitement over hearing former Pacific North West reporter Joffe-Walt, formerly of Tacoma's "public" station KPLU just an hour south and nestled in my parent's alma mater, I neglected to fact check her story. I blew it.
Though her points were often not completely inaccurate, they were presented in a misleading way that led listeners to some damning conclusions. For one misleading bit of info, let's review the graph I included, one that accompanied the Planet Money story notes.
This charts awarded disability. Ah, but note the title: "Annual Disability Awards for Former Workers. . . ." It turns out that:
. . . about 17 percent of disability beneficiaries worked in 2007. Their earnings were generally very low (about 4.8 percent had annual earnings of $1,000 or less), but that doesn’t justify the reporter’s unequivocal characterization of all disability beneficiaries as non-workers.
This is never mentioned in the story. Also, what it does not reveal is the rate of disability applications compared to the rate of awards. We can find that here.
Important to notice here is that the two graphs don't track each other perfectly because they are measuring different things. The Planet Money graph tracks the awarded numerically; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities graph tracks both awards and applications per 1,000 workers, meaning that workforce growth will distort the final track of both those who apply and those awarded. When tracking disability, I feel representing award recipients as a percentage of the workforce to be more accurate.
That said, I was impressed by the number of denials to disability insurance. A radio piece that described a vast "disability-industrial complex" really should emphasize how many are denied this benefit, don't you think? Yes, awards are rising; but then again, so are applicants, and by a much, much larger margin.
There's another element here; aging. Yes, the PM piece touched on the age of some of the insured, but only just. Here we learn that: "While the working-age population as a whole grew by just 25 percent from 1990 to 2011 . . . the number of insured workers over age 50 more than doubled. So, as the baby boom - the generation born between 1946 and 1964 - has moved squarely into its high-disability years, it has driven up the DI rolls." [Emphasis in the original.]
I won't rehash all the other errors, either plainly factual or merely misleading. I'll get down to the meat.
It involves sponsorship.
I know most of you probably don't give a rat's hindquarters for my rage against the pernicious effect of advertiser-paid "news" content. Here, that rage is not misplaced, not at all. For example, PM used to have an exclusive sponsor, Ally Bank, a rebranded hold over from General Motors (formerly GMAC). This is a conflict of interest, an investigative news organization accepting money from an organization they cover. If you want silly hand wringing and "Oh, noes", head over to this post from the NPR ombudsman. "As news organizations like NPR fight for financial security, any new or special funding arrangements need close examination. . . ."
Fight for financial security? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was formed to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in commercial broadcasting! This "financial security" nonsense was inflicted upon the CPB during the Bush II years, I firmly believe, as a path to tie the CPB to sponsors. I've said this before and I'll repeat it here: One need not demonstrate a conspiracy between the money's distributors and money's recipients to know that influence is felt. After all, PM has operated since 2008 . . . and they have yet to define what money is. Every time they get close, they express disbelief and just about shit themselves, then change the subject as quickly as possible.
Today's PM sponsor? Why, that would be the Lincoln Financial Group . . . wait for it . . . a business that happens to provide among its products disability insurance!
It turns out as well that Joffe-Walt's sources on this story are more than a little suspect. The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing "think tank" that helps shove the Overton Window sharply to the right. Among its strategies, it publishes books and other material that advocate private enterprise solutions to "problems" it can identify. A member, Richard Burkhauser, wrote a book on the topic of disability insurance. From the DailyKos piece, it turns out that Burkhauser bragged about his involvement in sourcing the PM money piece at an AEI forum in a video AEI produced. The video, strangely, no longer seems to load. Hmmm. Still:
According to someone in attendance, over lunch at the forum, Burkhauser went further, and claimed that NPR’s series actually originated when Joffe-Walt called him up, saying she wanted to base it on his book, “The Declining Work and Welfare of People With Disabilities,” published by none other than ... the American Enterprise Institute. The book pushes “fundamental changes in the way disability is insured and managed.” The forum was titled “Disability insurance: Inherent problems, practical solutions, and action for reform.”
Chana Joffe-Walt never cited her sources for her piece. Strangely, neither did she include interviews of anyone actually working in the Federal Disability Insurance program. That should have been a red flag for anyone listening (including myself). There is one strange connection that should be investigated, though: Lincoln Financial provides disability insurance for the American Enterprise Institute.
Follow the money, yet again.
This money connection is something that should be understood by anyone absorbing news here in the United States or wondering why the citizens of this once great country act so strangely and hold such weird conclusions on any number of issues. Though it is often repeated, the US news media is not by any means "liberal" or even slightly left-leaning. News from our commercial and even "public" media has shifted farther and farther to the right of the political spectrum as the years have progressed. The shift is so drastic, in fact, that often centrist pieces get labeled "liberal" simply because the rest of the media has shifted to drastically.
It's sad, because good reporting takes money. CPB used to provide that money, and quite effectively. They have since been compromised when Congress inflicted them with conflicts of interest, forcing them to accept money from those on whom they report. Though the amounts from this "enhanced sponsorship" are small, they are effective in reigning in the last bastion of professional reporting left in the country. NPR was a bargain, spending less on its entire news system than CBS paid for Katie Couric to be anchor. Still, for some of that money to come from private sources has, it is evident, decreased the quality of their reporting to, well, CBS levels.
I don't have a solution to this monied quagmire. Yes, CPB should again free itself from all perceived conflicts of interest; but that would require legislation in a time when getting any good reforms past are blocked by-you guessed it!-monied interests. And the situation is probably only going to get worse, especially now that the Kocktopus is making a bid for the L. A. Times.
Expect a future filled with more "stories" that people "missed." Despite the slashing and burning of social safety net programs, there are still a few out there that an Overton Window shoving corporate media can privatize the shit out of for big, big profit.
X-posted to talk_politics.