Cross-posted at MyDD
LithiumCola did a great diary this morning on Michael Moore's SICKO, and an example of some of the kinds of news articles we're seeing, and likely to keep seeing. If you haven't read it already, you oughtta. I agree with almost all of it. But I do have a little problem with this part:
So now begins the spin, the smear, the blinders from the mainstream media. All provided in an alleged "news" piece about . . . well, about something.
My problem? The mainstream media's a problem, but it's the wrong target here. If you want to know how to change the puppet show we call the mainstream media, you have to go after the puppeteers.
Welcome to the wonderful world of corporate public relations.
Let's go back to the LA Times piece and see what we can learn about messing up the health insurance industry's most excellent puppet show.
We start off on the flip.
This is a coordinated, sophisticated PR campaign waged by the health insurance companies and the Lobbyists Who Love Them. To cope with these kinds of people, you first have to know who they are, and turn their campaigns against the people who fund them. The Center For Media And Democracy sum it up this way:
"A multifaceted counteroffensive against Michael Moore's film about the health care industry" is beginning, reports Elizabeth Solomont. To counter the movie Sicko, "free market think tanks and the drug companies are already mobilizing. ... Several organizations staging responses to 'Sicko' receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, including the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Pacific Research Institute," notes Solomont, citing SourceWatch. "It definitely has to be rebutted," said the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Ken Johnson called the film a "biased, one-sided attack." Health Care America, "whose Web site says it is funded in part by pharmaceutical manufacturers," held a conference call with reporters, "to discuss what Michael Moore left out of his movie." A press release from FreedomWorks says the conservative lobbying group will also weigh in, with its "nationwide grassroots army ... handing out information at movie theaters that exposes Moore's hypocrisy, points out the problems associated with government-run health care, and promotes the FreedomWorks solution of removing existing government barriers that prevent Americans from being able to use the free market to choose the care that suits their individual needs."
How does this kind of "multifaceted counteroffensive" work, exactly? Mostly by finding credible "experts" -- surrogates for the industry who are not closely, or even publicly identified with the industry, through employment, through research funding, or even payments under the table. This is important, since there are very few people and companies less popular or less trusted in America than health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and their lobbyists. The only way a spokesperson for the industry can be effective is by not being seen as a spokesperson. At all costs, the industry must keep its fingerprints off its ads, articles and spokespeople.
This need for anonymity is our opportunity. These are corrupt connections, and given the facts of them, most people will reject the speakers, or at least question their objectivity.
That leads us to the LA Times piece that LithiumCola analyzes in his diary. Journalists, being time poor and deadline challenged, are going to sources who can help them get their job done. I'm willing to make a few conjectures about how Times Staff Writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar put this story together:
- He spoke to a number of people on background and formulated his "take" on the story. You can bet quite a bit that one of them was an industry lobbyist or PR flack. But Alonso-Zaldivar doesn't quote this person. Lack of space? Probably not. I don't think the flack wanted to be quoted. He or she did not want any fingerprints on this story.
- The writer decided that the hook for this story was "Democrats in disarray over SICKO and single-payer healthcare. My guess: the industry flack thought this was a really, really good idea. And had lots of useful contacts and materials to make available to our writer. Had them right there, and handy, for some reason :-)
- Our Times staffer needed color quotes. Now the choice of hook becomes important: the journalist has the story he wants to tell, and the quotes need to tell the story. So either he needs to quote people who agree with his narrative frame for the story, or he needs quotes that can be "made to fit", even if the person quoted might be (and probably is) scandalized at being used in a pretty sleazy way.
Now back to Punch and Judy here.
Now, I've already made my guess who the puppeteers are: paid industry PR flacks and corporate lobbying firms. But who are the puppets? Look at who Alonso-Zaldivar is quoting, and look for the strings back to the puppeteers.
Now, not all (and in this story, maybe not even most) of the people quoted are our puppets. Some are more likely misquoted, and are not very happy with our Times Staffer right now. But let's see what we know:
- Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association. She's one of Alonso-Zaldivar scary, scary radicals -- a villain of the piece. She's not, of course: the CNA are real heros here, and are some of the most effective advocates for health care reform you'll find anywhere. The quote is likely accurate, but in its context, it helps tell his story.
- Ron Pollack of Families USA: sure sounds like Ron has a problem with single payer, doesn't it? Well, he doesn't, since Families USA is an advocate of single payer, last I heard. Ron's being quoted out of context. Somebody should ask him about that :-)
- UC Berkeley health economist James Robinson: here we need to ask what kind of research Prof. Robinson does, and who pays for the research if he is funded. Most of his research appears to involve the economics of health insurance. I don't know who his sponsors are, but if our Kaiser Permanente Distinguished Professor of Health Economics is getting a lot of money from the industry, we are looking at some serious strings. And very possibly, a puppet for our off-the-record, deep-background lobbyist is pulling those strings.
- Robert D. Reischauer, "one of Washington's leading health policy experts": Reischauer is the president of the Urban Institute, an establishment "non-partisan" think tank. As president, one of his major jobs is raising money to keep the institute going. We need to ask: who's funding the Urban Institute. Follow the link; it's a fun read. Lots and lots of strings for the industry to pull, and such usual idiots as the American Enterprise Institute is on the list. Our staff writer is in the wrong here; this really should have been disclosed. If they were disclosed, Reischauer's nose would grow like Pinoccio.
So here's your assignment, kids. You're going to see lots of articles like this one. Here's what to do about them:
- Work the ref. You can reach our staffer at ricardo.alonso-zaldivar@latimes.com. Be factual, and be polite. We want this young man to choose a better class of friends than my posited off-the-record source. He's not necessarily a villain here, only mistaken.
- Help others figure out who the puppets are. The Center For Media And Democracy runs a wonder wiki at SourceWatch.org where various PR firms and their lackeys are tracked. It's very useful, but it has gaps. Our friend Reischauer, for example, does not yet have an entry. If he is going to be a point man on this issue, he has earned the right to one. Help deliver him from his current obscurity!
This puppet show goes on in large part because it happens behind the curtain. Let's do what we can to lift it up a bit, and let the sunshine in.