MEDIA SCARE TACTICS:
DO THEY CREATE CONTROVERSY IN THE GUISE OF NEWS FOR THE SAKE OF RATINGS?
This isn't a new issue. I've written about it before. But in the
wake of the landmark healthcare reform law, the media seems intent on
continuing a "what if" story even after the fairytale has had a happy
ending.
They did it
before when the Senate and House passed healthcare legislation, which, as is normally the case, required a conference committee to resolve
differences.
When Scott Brown was elected Senator from Massachusetts the media
announced healthcare was dead, because Democrats had lost their
filibuster-proof majority. The media knew that wasn't a deal breaker.
With many conservative Democrats in the caucus like Ben Nelson (D-Neb),
Mary Landrieu (D-La) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark), not to mention
unpredictable Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), the leadership never had rock
solid support.
Which is why it took a series of compromises, and each house hammered
out legislation that was a pretty good start. Did anyone really think
one Republican's election to the Senate was going to undo all of
Congress' hard work when there was an obvious solution on the table?
The obvious solution was for the House to pass the senate version and
iron out their differences later by what is called budget
reconciliation. The media, however, again made it appear the legislation
was dead in the same way they, after the revelation of Bill Clinton's
involvement with Monica Lewinsky, declared him finished. Don't believe
me? Just play back CNN senior news pundit John King's reports from
early 1998.
The Democratic leadership knew if they lost the momentum they'd
achieved it
wo
uld be an admission of major failure, and they could very
well lose congressional control in November. So, Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President forged a
compromise to entice those in the House, mainly anti-abortion folks led
by Bart Stupak (D-Mich), to vote for the senate bill, even with abortion
rights anathema to them. Language would be inserted in a budget
reconciliation bill to dilute or nullify some of the stuff unacceptable
to members of the House without screwing the support of senators.
What
made it immune to Republican opposition was that the budget
reconciliation process only takes a majority to pass, and was thus
filibuster proof.
But even now, after most of the media got it wrong and the healthcare legislation passed, and the budget reconciliation bill cleared the
House, new major concerns were bandied about Tuesday night on Anderson
Cooper's CNN show. What unfolded was another "what if" that went like
this.
The Republicans are angry. What else is new? They're going to tie
things up in the Senate and prevent the budget reconciliation bill from
becoming law. How? Well, the GOP Senate leaders are going to introduce
amendments to the bill that are so carefully worded that it will force
Democrats to vote for them. And if any one of the amendments passes it
will send the bill back to the House and start the process all over
again.
Except for one thing. It won't stop the already enacted legislation,
which has been signed into law. All of its features -- including the
aspects of the senate bill which were attacked by the Stupak group --
would begin to go into effect. So, what would the Republicans gain
other than a ridiculous and foolhardy attempt to convince the American
people, aided by the reckless reporting of the mainstream media, that
their amendments would have the force of stopping a bill, though their
main target has already become law?
And what about their "enticing" amendments? One, mentioned on
Cooper's show, was that Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) has introduced
legislation that bans insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs
to sex offenders. How could the Democratic Senators vote against that
without succumbing to Republican attacks? Easy. They would just
announce as they vote nay that, while they support such a notion, the
Republicans are corrupting the amendment process in order to monkey
around with an already achieved result.
The Senate Democrats campaigning for reelection can further reassure
their constituents that their negative votes in no way mean they support
Viagra for sex offenders by reintroducing the ban and all the other
"obvious, how could you be against this sort of thing?" nonsense the GOP
comes up with, as separate legislative bills unattached to the budget
reconciliation bill. Whether or not the GOP blocks the subsequent
Viagra prohibition -- either way -- their earlier accusations against
the Democrats would ring hollow.
So, the solution is simple, even if the Republicans come up with a
tantalizing "suggestion" that would be normally impossible for many
Democrats to be against -- let's say gays in the military or legalizing
gay marriage. Do the Republicans really think seasoned senate Democrats
are so stupid to fall for something so obvious, something that would
have no chance if it got back to the House, in the process killing the
reconciliation bill?
Yet, instead of the MSM ignoring the obvious answer it continues
posing unlikely questions to feed the curiosity of its audience, which
in turn creates anxiety for some of the less experienced members of
Congress.
Is that the media's job? To invent scenarios that are for the most
part implausible just to give them the excuse to have another ten minute
panel discussion, which in turn keeps them employed while so many in
their audience aren't?
It's time for the media -- all of them, broadcasters on NBC, CBS,
ABC, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, as well as newspapers and magazines -- to
report news and not fabricate "what ifs" to satisfy their ratings. That
time may be long in coming, but then, as in the case of healthcare
reform, I believe in happy endings.
Contact Us