Jonathan Chait of TNR on why the media’s overemphasis on conflict in coverage of health insurance reform (not to mention the GOP leadership’s stoking of it) is such a big deal:

The reform effort is necessarily getting unpopular. Why? because the health care story people are getting is about haggling, backbiting, and legislative morass. The Republican message is that health care reform is evil big government that will raise your taxes and ration your care while exploding the deficit. The Democratic “message” these days is all about process — if you see a Democrat quoted, he’s probably saying that we can still pass a bill, or castigating his colleagues for moving too slowly or too quickly, or simply bolstering the Republican critique. In this context, it’s literally impossible for public opinion to move in a friendly direction for reform. People — even supporters of reform — just get angry.

As a consumer of news, your blogger would be happy enough to grouse about how stupid some of the stories on Politico are; or maybe lament that some people believe the Fox News Channel is actually journalism.  But this–come on!  Wasn’t it enough for the media to not challenge the Bush administration for eight years?  They now have to pass on Republican talking points as news?  (And in the absence of sufficient talking points to feed the 24/7-cycle, to put up TMZ-esque stories about President Obama calling Max Baucus?  This all reads like an US Weekly headline: Bad Max and Barry make up!  Photos inside!)

(Nothing with relevance outside of this, please)

Would it kill the Washington Post or any other mainstream outlet to lead their coverage of the reform debate with stories on CBO estimates, on the bipartisan push for the Healthy Americans Act, or on the comparative effects of health insurance reform in other countries–stuff that is actually happening and substantive? (The discriminating reader will notice that not all of these issues reflect the political wishes of those favoring reform.)  Apparently it would–because instead of covering a meaningful update on legislation which will, if passed, affect every American, the Washington post insiders give us in-depth coverage of Congressional leaders walking in and out of meeting rooms.

This phony news would be fine if Washington was the only one watching Washington.  (I have yet to be persuaded that Washington pays attention to anyone else besides Washington.)  But here’s some actual news: insiders and other DC journalists, for better or worse, get listened to–they’re there, where the action happens.  And what they pass on–whether it is substantive reporting or gossip misrepresentative of actual events–goes to Washington bureaus which goes to national news which goes to real people, who rely on that news to make informed decisions on how they feel things in the national community are going.

In fact, that is what news is for.  Or used to be for.

Popularity: 1% [?]