Sound Bite Reporting

Unhealthy

and

Unhelpful

“Sound bite reporting,” that’s what I call it. Some might also label it lazy reporting. Reporters go to an event, wait for somebody to say some inflammatory or provocative, scribble it down, and build a short story around it. It is superficial, but it helps to fill the news hole. Producers and editors are happy. Everyone is happy. Everyone goes home, only to return to the scene of the crime again the next day.

On MSNBC’s “Hard Ball” of all places, I listened while analysts and others beat themselves up about not doing a better job in reporting former governor and VP candidate John Edwards and his dalliance during the past presidential campaign. More details are now emerging. The reporters and analysts took the easy road then. I remember one network commentator blurting, “Could this be the ticket?” when Edwards withdrew and endorsed Barack Obama.

Well, national and , yes, local reporters and news managers might as well start the self-flagellation now for under coverage and sound-bite reporting of health insurance/health care reform.

In a recent post on the importance of beat reporting, I wrote that there is only one health reporter in Austin media. Mary Ann Roser covers the health beat for the Austin American-Statesman. I have not noticed any health reform stories she may have written. Seema Mathur was an award-winning health reporter at KEYE TV (CBS). She moved to Dallas but has returned to KEYE as a freelance general assignments reporter. KEYE is currently accepting reporter applications.

The point is this: There is only one person locally covering health as a beat in Austin traditional media. No Austin news manager seems to have seen the importance of the health insurance/health care debate and assign a reporter to sort out fact from fiction while Congress considers this huge story. Page A-4 of the Saturday August 15, 2009 American-Statesman contains coverage of President Obama’s Montana town hall, written by a New York Times reporter. The story is accompanied by helpful web sites for those genuinely seeking information. This town hall was civil in spite of the fact that the audience was unscreened. Attendees to these “town hall” meetings either bellow their slogans or sit silently awaiting answers to questions—questions that are answered again and again but are unheard or misunderstood because bellowing is drowning out the answers. The media constantly covers the bellowing.

Facebook states that one of its goals is to bring people together. Then, I see this poll on my wall:

"Are you in favor of a Government run healthcare system" along with 174909 other people.
Are you in favor of a Government run healthcare system- Yes- No- Maybe

The poll is playing to the fears of a certain population. The question before Congress is not about a “Government run healthcare system”. It is about

health insurance for all citizens who may choose to keep their current private/commercial insurance and doctor if they wish. It is about eliminating waste and fraud and creating economy through competition. Some of that competition would come from a public alternative. The public or government alternative would help the uninsured, like those who cannot get commercial insurance because of a pre-existing condition.


An explanation like that is too long to fit in a poll. So, Facebook created a biased, edgy question bound to create controversy among its “friends”. Unfortunately, the resulting conversation is similar to what one might hear at a town hall meeting on the subject. Without some “friend” risking alienation and writing a comment, the misinformation and disinformation stand unchallenged. I contacted FB regarding the question, but have received no response.


It is obvious to me that citizens/readers/viewers/users/consumers of media want information. Even if they don’t want it, they need it. One man drove almost all of the way across Montana to get answers from President Obama this past week. All of the media focused on him, of course, in the pack mentality producing sound bite reporting. The president can answer with his goals and beliefs, but the heavy lifting must be done by Congress.


The bill in Congress bulges with amendments. More amendments will be added during debate. If it makes it to the Senate, it may be amended further, resulting in reconciliation in conference committee. The bill emerging from conference committee must then be passed again by both houses. It is impossible to say exactly what reform might look like by the end of the year.


Why not assign somebody to follow this huge and important legislation every step of the way in something more than sound bites? Why not bring the bill home to the small businesses? Why not find folks with pre-existing conditions and tell their stories? Why not talk to people on Medicare, asking them whether this “government-run” insurance works for them? Why not explain the way a bill becomes law, because apparently many do not understand? Why not do all of these things rather than waiting to see how it turns out and then muttering, we should have done a better job?


© Jim McNabb, 2009