Posted by
Unperson on Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:56:40 AM
The following are questions developed to be answered by people who decide what is or isn't news and how that news will be framed.
Perhaps I missed it. Could someone tell me if proof exists concerning the assertion by President Obama that protestors against the health care bill are being organized and/or funded by insurance companies? If so, then surely part of the news cycle should include a rendering of that proof so that others, who are so inclined may verify or dispute the allegations. Thus far, I am only aware of one instance of organization which was fairly well countered by Mary Katherine Ham's article "
Think Progress, MSNBC 'Manufacture' a Story With Putative Smoking Gun 'Mob' Memo" published on the 5th of this month in the Weekly Standard Online. If this is the story that is the basis for the continued allegations of corporate invovement in the protests, then isn't it time to give up the meme?
Has anyone in your organization actually taken the time to go to these meetings and talk to the people who are standing in line waiting to get in? If not, then why is your curiosity, the very core of journalism, so dulled? Doesn't it strike you that your continued inability to pursue a story makes it seem that you are on the take in some fashion? Aren't you interested in getting all sides of the story anymore? Do you believe that if you continue to ignore the story that it will just go away? Do you have any opinions about signs carried by the protestors consisting of lettering with magic markers on poster paper versus professionally made signs carried by members of Acorn or Code Pink whenever they protest something?
Has anyone in your organization actually read the health care bill? If so, then why aren't you reporting what you are reading? If not,why not? Have you given up examining what comes out of Washington? Do you now take it on faith that any legislation proposed by the current congress is above any sort of reproach? While you might believe that the current government will weild such legislation in a way that is benificial to the population at large (and it seems to me that a journalist worth his salt might be more than a little skeptical), what about the impact of the legislation in the hands of future generations and the politicians who will oversee its continuance? Do you believe that there are enough safegaurds against abuse in the bill, because I haven't seen any?
Are you at all concerned that your representatives are not reading the legislation they are voting on? Doesn't it strike you as being just a tad irresponsible for legislators to enact laws without fully understanding the impact those laws will have on the people, particularly with something as all encompassing as health care? If interns or assistants are the ones reading the legislation and giving a thumbs up or down, then wouldn't that leave the power of law in their hands, rather than their employer's? Do you know any of these people? Have you interviewed them to determine if they are fit to make these kinds of decisions? How about that for a story? The real decision makers in Washington! I see a Pulitzer in your future.