A fundamental freedom guaranteed by the U.S. constitution is freedom of the press. An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy.
Yet, this essential, fundamental freedom does not ensure that the media lives up to its responsibilities.
Many believe that the national media is liberal. I contend that the myth of the "liberal media" is just that - a myth, pure baloney.
My gripe with the mainstream media, namely commercial television and radio, is that it is profit-driven, mainly concerned with viewer ratings. It cuts costs and goes along with the herd. Hard-nosed, investigative reporting costs money and might offend audiences. National Public Radio (NPR), to which I contribute and support, has a few exceptional programs. But in general, NPR is only marginally better than the commercial media.
It's not that reporting by the mainstream media or NPR is necessarily false. It's that the real stories, and the facts behind the stories, are either not reported or are dumbed down such that citizens are ill informed or misled.
A past example is the media's rah-rah support for the invasion of Iraq. Skeptics of the wisdom of that invasion were ignored at best, or painted as unpatriotic at worst.
Here are a few more recent examples: The mainstream media have bought into the notion that federal budget deficits are our nation's most serious economic problem, and if not solved, we will become like Greece.
Left unreported is that, unlike Greece, we issue debt in our own currency. But why this matters requires explanation and reporting in greater depth than the Platte River in dry season.
Mainstream economists, including myself, strongly disagree that deficits are our most serious economic problem. Our fundamental economic problem is unemployment and an economy that is producing far less than its capacity, this caused by phenomena including technology, trade policies that encourage out-sourcing and off-shoring, labor policy favoring corporations, and an unfavorable distribution of income diminishing the middle class of America. But how much simpler to repeat the "danger of the deficits" nonsense.
Besides, thanks to an economy that is recovering, however slowly, deficits are decreasing. But you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media.
In the same vein, the media repeat the blather about "handing the debt burden to our children." What about handing our children a dilapidated infrastructure, deteriorating bridges, dangerous highways, outmoded water supply and sewer systems, and undereducated children growing up in poverty because we aren't putting resources into these items?
The mainstream media continually harps on the faulty notion that entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are costly transfers of wealth from working people to the elderly and retired - programs we can no longer afford. This is patent nonsense.
Sure, the elderly receive the immediate medical benefits and the Social Security checks. But the mainstream media sheep never remind audiences that Medicare relieves working families of some very tough choices, such as, "Do we spend many thousands of dollars to buy Grandpa a new knee, and mega thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more years - or months? Or do we send Junior to college, and maybe save for our own retirement?" Medicare conveniently relieves working families of these excruciating choices and moral dilemmas.
Similarly, Social Security frees up working families from expenses they would otherwise have for supporting their aging parents and grandparents, allowing younger families to pay their bills and send Junior to college. So if these programs are "transfers of wealth," they benefit younger Americans as well as older.
But we never get this side of the story from the commercial mainstream media, or even from NPR for that matter.
And what about the mandated health insurance of the Affordable Care Act that is constantly bashed by the media? All we get from the media is repetition of the voices from the right, "Why should the young and healthy buy it insurance they don't want it or don't need it?"
The simple one word answer to that question, an answer never raised by the mainstream media, is "responsibility." If a guy wrecks his car without collision insurance, he doesn't expect the government or General Motors to buy him a new one. But if a healthy person who "doesn't need" health insurance and doesn't buy it, gets unexpectedly sick or crippled up, we don't let him die. The rest of us pick up the tab either through public assistance or higher health insurance costs for the rest of us.
In other words, it is responsible to have health insurance so the rest of us don't have to pick up the tab for unexpected accident or illness and for costly, inefficient use of emergency rooms for the uninsured. If we're concerned about efficiency as well as equity and fairness, it's a lot more efficient to subsidize health insurance for the poor than for them to go totally untreated or wait till they get sick enough to over-burden our costly emergency rooms.
But do the mainstream media remind us of this? Of course not - it's much easier and safer to go along with the herd, and throw the politically unconnected and uninsured under the bus. It's more "newsworthy" and exciting to hammer on the President for attempting what any humane society should do. Sure, that's "news," but so is the inefficiency and inadequacy of the existing system.
When Sen. Cruz was waxing about the "millions of people suffering under Obamacare," where were the logical questions? "Senator, how are millions suffering when they can no longer be cut off from insurance with a pre-existing condition?"
Instead of logical questions, we get, "Hey look, the tea party has a new superstar - isn't that exciting?"
We expect innuendo, disinformation, bromides, and phony nostrums and palliatives from our politicians. We need, and should expect, far more from the mainstream media.
But we surely aren't getting it.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Yet, this essential, fundamental freedom does not ensure that the media lives up to its responsibilities.
Many believe that the national media is liberal. I contend that the myth of the "liberal media" is just that - a myth, pure baloney.
My gripe with the mainstream media, namely commercial television and radio, is that it is profit-driven, mainly concerned with viewer ratings. It cuts costs and goes along with the herd. Hard-nosed, investigative reporting costs money and might offend audiences. National Public Radio (NPR), to which I contribute and support, has a few exceptional programs. But in general, NPR is only marginally better than the commercial media.
It's not that reporting by the mainstream media or NPR is necessarily false. It's that the real stories, and the facts behind the stories, are either not reported or are dumbed down such that citizens are ill informed or misled.
A past example is the media's rah-rah support for the invasion of Iraq. Skeptics of the wisdom of that invasion were ignored at best, or painted as unpatriotic at worst.
Here are a few more recent examples: The mainstream media have bought into the notion that federal budget deficits are our nation's most serious economic problem, and if not solved, we will become like Greece.
Left unreported is that, unlike Greece, we issue debt in our own currency. But why this matters requires explanation and reporting in greater depth than the Platte River in dry season.
Mainstream economists, including myself, strongly disagree that deficits are our most serious economic problem. Our fundamental economic problem is unemployment and an economy that is producing far less than its capacity, this caused by phenomena including technology, trade policies that encourage out-sourcing and off-shoring, labor policy favoring corporations, and an unfavorable distribution of income diminishing the middle class of America. But how much simpler to repeat the "danger of the deficits" nonsense.
Besides, thanks to an economy that is recovering, however slowly, deficits are decreasing. But you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media.
In the same vein, the media repeat the blather about "handing the debt burden to our children." What about handing our children a dilapidated infrastructure, deteriorating bridges, dangerous highways, outmoded water supply and sewer systems, and undereducated children growing up in poverty because we aren't putting resources into these items?
The mainstream media continually harps on the faulty notion that entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are costly transfers of wealth from working people to the elderly and retired - programs we can no longer afford. This is patent nonsense.
Sure, the elderly receive the immediate medical benefits and the Social Security checks. But the mainstream media sheep never remind audiences that Medicare relieves working families of some very tough choices, such as, "Do we spend many thousands of dollars to buy Grandpa a new knee, and mega thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more years - or months? Or do we send Junior to college, and maybe save for our own retirement?" Medicare conveniently relieves working families of these excruciating choices and moral dilemmas.
Similarly, Social Security frees up working families from expenses they would otherwise have for supporting their aging parents and grandparents, allowing younger families to pay their bills and send Junior to college. So if these programs are "transfers of wealth," they benefit younger Americans as well as older.
But we never get this side of the story from the commercial mainstream media, or even from NPR for that matter.
And what about the mandated health insurance of the Affordable Care Act that is constantly bashed by the media? All we get from the media is repetition of the voices from the right, "Why should the young and healthy buy it insurance they don't want it or don't need it?"
The simple one word answer to that question, an answer never raised by the mainstream media, is "responsibility." If a guy wrecks his car without collision insurance, he doesn't expect the government or General Motors to buy him a new one. But if a healthy person who "doesn't need" health insurance and doesn't buy it, gets unexpectedly sick or crippled up, we don't let him die. The rest of us pick up the tab either through public assistance or higher health insurance costs for the rest of us.
In other words, it is responsible to have health insurance so the rest of us don't have to pick up the tab for unexpected accident or illness and for costly, inefficient use of emergency rooms for the uninsured. If we're concerned about efficiency as well as equity and fairness, it's a lot more efficient to subsidize health insurance for the poor than for them to go totally untreated or wait till they get sick enough to over-burden our costly emergency rooms.
But do the mainstream media remind us of this? Of course not - it's much easier and safer to go along with the herd, and throw the politically unconnected and uninsured under the bus. It's more "newsworthy" and exciting to hammer on the President for attempting what any humane society should do. Sure, that's "news," but so is the inefficiency and inadequacy of the existing system.
When Sen. Cruz was waxing about the "millions of people suffering under Obamacare," where were the logical questions? "Senator, how are millions suffering when they can no longer be cut off from insurance with a pre-existing condition?"
Instead of logical questions, we get, "Hey look, the tea party has a new superstar - isn't that exciting?"
We expect innuendo, disinformation, bromides, and phony nostrums and palliatives from our politicians. We need, and should expect, far more from the mainstream media.
But we surely aren't getting it.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
