AC360 Apparently Forgets 'Death Panels' Have Been Debunked, Holds Idiotic Political Debate
Hi everyone. For those of you who celebrated, I hope you had a great Christmas. I'm not quite ready to come out of my holiday slacking. There probably won't be any full regular posts this week since I have the 'best' and 'worst' listicles to keep me busy, but I did want to say a quick word about tonight's broadcast.
Conservatives are apparently freaking out because starting the first of January, the government will pay doctors who advise their Medicare patients on their options regarding end-of-life care. To normal people, no bit whoop--perhaps even a plus. To the Palin crowd? ZOMG, death panels! And here we are. Suddenly the so-called death panel debate has been 'reignited.' Except, um, can you really reignite a debate about something that's complete and utter BS?
According to 360, apparently you can. They actually started the segment out pretty well, just laying out the facts. But the train really went off the tracks when Randi Kaye (our anchor for the evening) finished her summation with the question "But what does it mean for your family's health?" and then proceeded to introduce...two political strategists. Um, what? Because that makes sense. If we were actually going to learn what the provision means for our family's health, one would assume the guests might be, you know, health care professionals.
Instead, we have the constantly employed political left/right parameters. Since everything in life is about politics, apparently! And by the way, a former McCain adviser? Shouldn't those people be, like, hiding in shame? I mean, I don't know what the hell has happened to that man, but I can't think of a bigger fall from grace that didn't involve some sort of corruption charges or tapping feet in a bathroom stall.
Anyway. As most of you know, I have had it up to here with false equivalency BS. Politifact--a very respected non-partisan site--named 'death panels' their biggest lie of 2009. So 360, what does it take?! There are no death panels. Next! What more do you possibly need before you can just say that? Keeping them honest? Sorry kids, not this time.
Conservatives are apparently freaking out because starting the first of January, the government will pay doctors who advise their Medicare patients on their options regarding end-of-life care. To normal people, no bit whoop--perhaps even a plus. To the Palin crowd? ZOMG, death panels! And here we are. Suddenly the so-called death panel debate has been 'reignited.' Except, um, can you really reignite a debate about something that's complete and utter BS?
According to 360, apparently you can. They actually started the segment out pretty well, just laying out the facts. But the train really went off the tracks when Randi Kaye (our anchor for the evening) finished her summation with the question "But what does it mean for your family's health?" and then proceeded to introduce...two political strategists. Um, what? Because that makes sense. If we were actually going to learn what the provision means for our family's health, one would assume the guests might be, you know, health care professionals.
Instead, we have the constantly employed political left/right parameters. Since everything in life is about politics, apparently! And by the way, a former McCain adviser? Shouldn't those people be, like, hiding in shame? I mean, I don't know what the hell has happened to that man, but I can't think of a bigger fall from grace that didn't involve some sort of corruption charges or tapping feet in a bathroom stall.
Anyway. As most of you know, I have had it up to here with false equivalency BS. Politifact--a very respected non-partisan site--named 'death panels' their biggest lie of 2009. So 360, what does it take?! There are no death panels. Next! What more do you possibly need before you can just say that? Keeping them honest? Sorry kids, not this time.
Labels: fake balance, so-called death panels
posted by eliza at 11:59 PM
4 Comments:
Bravo on your comments concerning death panels. I like AC360 and have watched it for years. I have been feeling over the past year that AC et.al. are not using their intelligence concerning topics like death panels and rely too much on political pundits. I think AC can be very incisive in his questionning and needs to do it more often.
@MJ: Since their (mostly Anderson's) false equivalency misstep during the Sherrod debacle, they seem to have been moving away from egregious examples of "balance," but I think last night was one of them. CNN has always relied too much on political pundits. Cable news' default setting seems to be to filter all stories through a political lens. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing.
Is there seriously no way to look at a topic that doesn't involve a Liberal commentator and a Conservative commentator going at it until the referee, I mean ANCHOR, calls the bell for a commercial?
Americans are ridiculous in their refusal to talk about end-of-life plans. This discussion with doctors could really help because it allows patients to make the tough choices instead of their families. It's a good thing.
I also think there are a lot of changes to health insurance happening in a couple days. No more spending flex money on Advil without a prescription. Less need for flex money because fewer co-pays. This is news people could use. These changes exist. Death panels don't.
What's funny (not really in a ha-ha way) is that last night I was watching the rerun of Jon Stewart's Larry King interview, and he addressed CNN's fake-balancey crap directly. He basically said he's frustrated with CNN because they have the resources to be a real arbitrator, but that requires taking a position, not just having people argue and then saying that both sides are valid. Oh, and he also wants to get rid of the pundits. And I was sitting there thinking, "For pete's sake, listen to him!" But that interview happened in October, so I guess they didn't.
Post a Comment
<< Home