.jpg)
Although I agree the coverage was not balanced, I think Dionne ignores several points, and that the unbalanced coverage could also be evidence to the contrary of Dionne's conclusion.
First, most of the media coverage I saw about the protesters marginalized them, calling them ingorant, extremists, or worse, and many of the TV talking heads expanded this to include anyone else who thought like the protesters, or even entire regions or political parties. CNN regularly had panel discussions among pundits about it. The panel was often the show's host, 2 or 3 people criticizing the protesters, and one person meekly defending them. On CNN, I often saw the host interrupt and/or rebut the defender, while letting the criticizer take their time and finish their point. Instead of what Dionne is concluding, it's just as easy to conclude that the excess coverage of the protesters was an attempt to color all dissent as idiotic, while the President and others are calm and above the fray.
Second, the media are entertainment. If they're boring, nobody will watch. Dionne should know this, since the newspaper industry he works for is suffering as a result. So, nobody should be surprised at the absence of coverage of boring meetings. But, what really surprised me was how little people were aware of all the hatred that went on during the Bush years. The ignorance about how tame the town hall protests were in comparison supports the story that the town hall protesters were extremists. By covering one party's extremists, while ignoring the others, do the media make the party they cover look better or worse than the one they ignore? This website has excellent coverage of how extreme Bush-hating became during his presidency, and how little of it was covered by the media. I also commented on the assymetric coverage of "crazies" here, in response to a Washington Post article claiming only the Republican party has crazies.
Third, Dionne continues the storyline that all dissent is extremist by ignoring all the more mainstream forms of protest against the current version of health care reform. If the media were trying to cover only "right-wingers" in order to stop health care reform, why would they spend so much time on the protesters that are easiest to dismiss, and not on everyone else?
Opposition is far more widespread than a few outspoken people at town hall meetings - if the media's agenda was what Dionne suggests, they would focus on opposition from more serious groups. The AARP is very hesitant to back reform (my note here), many medical associations are against it (my note on one group of anesthesiologists here), and many feel tort reform should an important part of the bill, but Obama has ruled it out (here, here).
At http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/, there is a petition with more than 1.2 million signatures against Obamacare. By the time the petition is finished, it may be the largest such petition ever. John Goodman, one of the petition's organizers, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week, and describes the signers:
These are a very diverse group of people. Some of them are part of a 40,000-person network of former Obama supporters who are experiencing buyer's remorse. Others are part of various disease networks, including patients concerned about the future of cancer care. There are networks of senior citizens worried about cuts in Medicare and the possible closing of their private Medicare insurance plans. There are Christian conservatives worried about taxpayer-funded abortions and subsidies for euthanasia. And there are an enormous number of people who are simply concerned about their health care.
While you might disagree with many of these reasons, the diversity of the opposition proves that dissent is not limited to a few, like-minded people.
I also think the media is de-emphasizing the fact that the Democrats could pass heath care reform without any support from Republicans, if they could just agree among themselves. They have the White House and both houses of Congress. An August 1 Washington Post article (my note on the article) about the legislative process behind HR 3200 said: "Democrats have large majorities in both chambers, but they have discovered the perils of being a party that yokes together Northern California liberals and Deep South good ol' boys." If the right-wing dissenters are not the deciding factor in the debate, why cover them far more than the fighting within the Democratic Party?
Finally, Dionne does everyone a disservice by encouraging political debate based on ad hominem arguments, where citizens judge the message based on the messenger, not on the content. The more time people spend trying to figure out who is biased and how, the less time they spend analysing the message and seeking out diverse opinions. Partisan or personal attacks make for better entertainment than coverage of a quiet town hall meeting, but they probably don't give voters the information they need to make wise decisions at the ballot box, which is the purpose of a free media. I prefer to assume everyone is biased (because everyone is), find someone with the opposite bias, and listen to both. Let everyone speak honestly and openly, so everyone can make an informed decision.
President Obama wanted more transparency in the health care debate, and promised to televise much of it to keep people informed and involved. He broke that promise, and you have to wonder if the current situation would be improved if he had kept it.
