Posted on 06/11/2009 3:41:45 AM PDT by Man50D
When President Obama signaled last week that he wants a government-run, government-owned health insurance provision to be included in the health-care reform bill being readied in the Senate, only one of the nation’s top five, large-circulation newspapers thought it was worthy of front-page coverage.
The Los Angeles Times, which has the fourth highest newspaper circulation in the country, reported the story on its front page last Thursday.
The 933-word article, titled “Insurance mandate on the table; Obama indicates he’s now open to idea in healthcare overhaul,” said that Obama “signaled new openness to the idea of the government requiring that most Americans get medical insurance.”
In the text of the story, the Times added: "At the same time, the president, who rejected such a mandate during the campaign, reaffirmed in strong terms his determination to offer a government-run healthcare plan as an alternative to private insurance."
The letter that Obama wrote to Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) expressed support for a so-called “public option” for health insurance – codewords for government-owned, government-run health insurance. The letter followed a meeting last Tuesday in which Obama met with senior Democratic senators to discuss health-care reform last Tuesday.
“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans,” Obama’s letter said. “This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”
The other top-five circulating newspapers ran the story about Obama’s letter on page four or deeper within the paper.
USA Today, which has the largest circulation in the nation, placed an AP-wire version of the story on page four. Called “Obama plan would provide health care for all,” the 724-word article said: “In providing the first real details on how he wants to reshape the nation’s health care system, the president urged Congress on Wednesday toward a sweeping overhaul that would allow Americans to buy into a government insurance plan.”
The Wall Street Journal, the second most widely circulated U.S. paper, reported the story on page four in an article titled “Obama Shifts on Coverage Mandate.” The article, also published last Thursday, noted how Obama’s letter to the two senators contradicted the stance he took during his campaign against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008.
“During his presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama opposed then-Sen. Hillary Cliton’s idea of a health-insurance mandate on individuals,” the article said. “He argued it would put too much burden on low-income families.”
Near the end of the story, the Journal reported: ‘The big remaining issues are how to pay for expanded coverage and whether to include a public-insurance option alongside private plans. In his letter, Mr. Obama reiterated his backing for a public plan, saying it would give Americans "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."
The WSJ added: "Several committee proposals have broad support and are expected to make it to the final Senate legislation. Thy include creating new exchanges that allow consumers to comparison-shop among insurance plans, having the government take a greater role in preventing chronic illnesses, giving low-income Americans tax credits to buy health insurance and creating incentives to increase the nation's supply of primary-care doctors."
The most “buried” story was an 804-word piece, headlined “Obama Urges Quick Action By Senators On Insurance,” that ran on page 16 of The New York Times.
"President Obama on Tuesday affirmed his support for the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance plan, but he acknowledged that such a plan would sharply reduce the chances for Republican support of legislation to overhaul the health care system, Democratic senators said," the newspaper's lead paragraph said.
The Washington Post placed its 606-word story on page four of the A-section. The article, titled “A Move Toward Requiring Health Coverage; In Letter to Senate Democrats, Obama Suggests Hardship Waiver for the Poor,” described Obama’s “fresh willingness to consider taxing employer-sponsored health insurance” and “a new openness toward a nationwide requirement that every American have health coverage.”
Toward the end of the story, the Post mentioned government-run health insurance: "'Do we feel a responsibility to help our employees afford health care? Yes, we do,' Freddy Castiblanco, owner of La Terraza Cafe in Queens, N.Y., said in congressional testimony yesterday. 'Are we willing to contribute? Yes.'
“Castiblanco, who employs 11 people, said any health-care overhaul should include the option of a government-sponsored insurance policy for people having trouble buying coverage on the private market.
“That idea got a boost from Obama, who said in the letter that he 'strongly' believes in giving Americans the choice of a public option."
The story – like Obama’s original letter -- also advocated a “hardship waiver” for low-income households, as well as an exemption for small businesses to provide health care benefits.
The president’s attempt to rally support “so that Congress can complete health-care reform by October,” meanwhile, gives lawmakers less than four months to consider legislation to fundamentally revamp a health-care system that has existed in the U.S. for generations.
According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, which maintains an electronic database of newspaper circulation around the country, USA Today leads U.S. newspapers with a weekday circulation of 2,113,725 as of March 2009. The Wall Street Journal follows with a circulation of 2,082,189, and The New York Times circulation stands at 1,039,031 newspapers daily. The Los Angeles Times comes in fourth with 723,181 weekday papers, and The Washington Post has the fifth highest circulation with 665,383.
This Kenyan poseur has got to go...2012 cannot come quickly enough unless some jurist will force this poseur to prove he is a ‘natural born citizen’ wich he is not.
There once was a profession called "journalist", in which devotion to reporting in a fair and objective way important things outweighed devotion to the advocacy of ideological positions. The history of that profession can now be written since true journalism is all but dead.
Now if only there remained a profession called "historian"...
If you’ve ever watched the old movie, Teacher’s Pet, then you can see about when true journalism ended. As the movie indicated, “man on the street” journalists were gradually eliminated and replaced by “journalists” who attended elite colleges. Once the journalists were no longer “average Joe’s” and became elitist children of elitist colleges any and all ethics in journalism ceased to exist.
‘’Jurists’’ are too busy commiting treason to fool with legal matters.
Media today has an incestuous relationship with politics.
Just to cut through all the BS, this means American taxpayers get to subsidize yet another subsidy program for illegal aliens, criminals, and neer-do-wells.
May the former United States rest in peace.
I have failed in my duty of turning over to my children a better America.
No private company can compete with the government.
The fascists are stealing all our people’s wealth and no one is doing anything.
Sadly that is true - we have a more “government run” media than even Russia. There is no objectivity whatsoever to most of the rags on the marked. What I am also seeing is friends who are receiving magazines such as “Time” and “Newsweek” when they have never subscribed to them, indicating that their subscription numbers are so weak that they are giving away the product to keep their advertising dollars up. If only these advertisers would start to see the light then maybe papers and magazines would start to print the facts instead of their liberal fantasies.
The left-leaning journalism schools even have an appropriately post-modern name for the "new" way of doing things: "Viewpoint journalism." This means that since (in their view) nobody can really be purely objective, it is now "ethical" to simply stop being objective at all and put your "viewpoint" into the actual reporting part of your so-called journalism.
There were a number of segments on C-SPAN awhile back in which journalistic "ethics" panels got together and rationalized why this is OK now and why being "objective" is so last century. TIME magazine even had an editor's introductory article a year or so ago (when the new editor showed up) proclaiming this kind of propaganda generation as their new approach to the magazine.
IMO we ought to specifically name "viewpoint journalism" when we complain to media news organizations. Let them know we know what's up and we won't take it any longer. We might also mention that "viewpoint journalism" is why they're failing and their ratings are falling.
I would think it’s important but let’s be honest. Hardly anyone reads papers anymore so this really doesn’t matter. Obama and his merry band of fabian socialists know they are dealing with a mind numb population who are more worried about their next paycheck and gladly let the government take over yet another area of responsibility so they don’t have to. Obama will get national health care through congress and the nightmare will get worse.
You know I am not sure that is true the more I am learning about our past (the real past). I think what has happened is that all of their sanctimonious BS has caught up with them and people expect them to live up to the image they have been portraying; either that or Clark Kent ruined it for them.
“What I am also seeing is friends who are receiving magazines such as “Time” and “Newsweek” when they have never subscribed to them”
I bought somehting over the internet and I got an offer for 4 “free” magazine subscriptions. I declined beocause everone fo them was similar to Time and Newsweek.
How about Forbes?
bump
There, fixed it.
I turned down a telemarketing offer for *free* magazines last month. I am now receiving free copies of TV Guide. It is all ads and fluff, but the listings are somewhat useful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.