Tweet
I have nothing against Michael Jackson. One of my most vivid memories from the early 1980s is the Billie Jean video that MTV seemed to play every 10 minutes, but never got old. I don’t begrudge his family, friends, or fans one bit for mourning his loss. I just wonder why cable news is able to provide saturation coverage of Michael Jackson in a way that they will never do for, say, health care or the war in Afghanistan.
It’s amazing what cable news can accomplish when it puts its collective mind to something. I haven’t affirmatively sought out any information regarding Michael Jackson’s death, but I can’t seem to escape the coverage, which simply seeps into my brain. Without even trying, I have absorbed the basic facts of his death and the aftermath, including what happened at his memorial service–the information seems to bombard me every time I go the gym and glance up at CNN on the tv.
I can understand why Wolf Blitzer and the rest are drawn to covering Jackson this way, for days on end: it’s a good story–the prodigy from a musical family who made it on his own before withdrawing into a reclusive existence at a ranch called Neverland. It might be a good movie–sort of an updated version of Citizen Kane in a musical context? I wonder though–why can’t cable news spend some of this same energy telling stories about the health care debate? I don’t mean this simply as a way to advance the public option and the need for reform. This approach wouldn’t mean cable news could only tell stories of families bankrupted by emergency health care costs or uninsured people leaving serious health problems untreated. The story-telling approach could be applied to all aspects of an issue–tell the stories of doctors, of executives at health insurance companies, of lobbyists, of congressional staffers, of members of Congress.
I’m not arguing for a dumbing-down of the news. Story telling doesn’t have to be fluff, it doesn’t have to be substance-free. In a different media context, All the President’s Men tells one of the most engrossing stories I’ve ever come across. I also don’t claim this is an original idea–I vaguely remember someone making this point in a different context a while ago, perhaps on Hullaballoo, observing that the media has the ability to inform people, when they choose to do so, through effective story-telling. I’m just saying that it might be nice for cable news to saturate viewers with stories about health care, the war in Afghanistan, the economy, drawing on some of the zeal that has gone into covering Michael Jackson over the past few weeks.
8 Comments
Because the companies who buy the advertising on cable news are opposed to ANY legislation that inhibits the profits of the insurers.
These same advertisers are more than happy to spend millions to sponsor “news fluff.”
The ad buyers dictate coverage.
Very simple.
I see your point, but, trying to be on the optimistic side, there have been some small openings and reasons for hope–for instance, MSNBC has 3 nighttime shows with hosts that all support (at least) the public option (Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann). Apparently MSNBC has decided the ratings these shows get outweigh any downside in terms of offending insurers. The next step would be for MSNBC to make its daytime coverage more substantive.
The doctor’s stories are really interesting. This article in the NYT tells this story about a Texas republican congresscritter doctor:
Another doctor unable to connect to financial reality. How is a tax credit or deduction or a health savings account going to help that woman?
thanks for posting this–I’d love to hear much more from doctors, who I’m sure have plenty of stories to tell about the ways in which insurance companies affect their patients’ care
A little OT, but on Sunday’s CNN “State of the Union” section on health care, I heard a Republican senator argue against the 1 – 3% tax surcharge on those making over $250,000 by making the claim that the financial impact of this tax would burden small business and cause more unemployment because owners would spend less on wages and do less hiring.
Yet, I didn’t hear any Democrat advance the argument that, given that health care for employees is a huge burden on those small businesses who choose to provide some healthcare to remain competitive in hiring, this 1 – 3% on gross income would save the health care-committed businesses a lot more than 1 – 3% of their gross in just a year or three. And no one said that this tax contribution would make for a more secure America because a society where people don’t go bankrupt because of catastrophic health care costs, and no parents have to take their kids to emergency rooms to treat chronic, low level disease would in all probability be a lot less tense and divided.
I’m saying that peaceful living would likely result in more productivity and less mental stress in the US, and health care for all is a huge step in that direction, a paradigm shift.
great point paz3. Very few small business owners make $250,000 a year. To give my own personal example, I co-owned a small business for four years, and we were lucky to gross $250,000, let along pay out a salary that was even 1/3 of that $250,000 number. One of our biggest problems was health insurance–it was our biggest expense apart from rent and salaries. We couldn’t afford to bring in additional full-time employees because of the cost of health insurance. If Bush had wanted to help me, a small business owner from 2002-06, providing a public option would have been a very welcome step. Cutting taxes for people making in the six figures did nothing for me and I bet it did nothing for most small business owners
Chris, do really mean to say what ya did? You don’t know?
The cable news orgs are owned and operated by the same 1% and are the mouthpieces of the 1% as are the major nets.
As are most radio outlets, most major print papers, and all of MSM.
And they play to what will make the Wall St go up and down as needed, for the 1% to profit. Cuz they make money either way.
So they won’t be supporting prog issues like HC Reform, unless there’s a slant to work to CRITICIZE the prog view, and support the corporatist view.
Shirley, Chris, you knew this?
Yer not a jounalism or com studies major, are ya? ;-)
“If it bleeds it leads.”
Remember? Journo/Com Studies Media 101?
thanks for the comment Larue–as I mentioned above, the dissonance I experience here is caused by the fact that MSNBC does have 3 shows with hosts who go against the corporate line when it comes to health care. That suggests to me that there is an opening for better coverage. Ten years ago, I would never have dreamed that someone like Rachel Maddow could be on cable news…ten years from now, perhaps there will be daytime coverage on MSNBC that I never dreamed was possible (in a good way)