Did you watch the President on ABC talking about healthcare reform last week? Don’t worry – neither did anyone else.
For the best recap, have a look at what Tobin Harshaw wrote in the New York Times' “Opinionater” column:
“It was a bit like planning the dream wedding only to have a hurricane rip away the chapel roof as you make your way down the aisle.”
He also offers useful links to what other reformacenti had to say:
Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute gives a “thoughtful, respectful and probing” analysis:
“Call this a teachable moment, but even with ABC’s best-laid plans to kickstart the debate about health care reform and not allow the “Prescription for America” special to become an “infomercial,” as many have complained – the president spent more than twice as much time as his questioners vaguely answering or not answering the questions asked of him. But the network consistently presented the event as part of the need to fix a “broken system.” When asked, every one of the 164 hand-picked audience members said they felt that health care needed to be changed.”
And further …
“While Obama had to field some difficult questions — from the audience and ABC — he faced no Republican critics of his proposals. The network also allowed him to dominate the program with long-winded and vague answers. Out of the 75 minutes the network dedicated over the two programs (commercials excluded), the president managed to take 60 percent of that time: 45 minutes to give 19 vague responses – not exactly the “dialogue” advertised by ABC …”
Scarecrow at FireDogLake’s Oxdown Gazette, however, thinks the network lured the president into a devilish trap:
“For its part, ABC insisted on having Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, instead of informed, qualified health care experts, guide the conversation. That was a mistake, but not the worst of ABC’s offensive conduct. Sawyer’s main contribution was to introduce her own uninformed biases/opinions in framing issues and introducing questioners. Gibson’s primary role was to reveal his own misconceptions and then literally read talking points from a Republican letter — an obvious ransom extracted after days of Republican whining about giving the President air time on a critical public issue.”
And as far as trading "Good Morning America" for "Healthcare at Night" ...
“Gibson’s other role was to interrupt the President every few minutes to announce a commercial break. The all too frequent commercial interruptions served as an apt metaphor for how private commercial interests demand our attention and extract their profits while limiting our ability to discuss critical public policy issues.”
Harshaw’s full column can be found here.
For the best recap, have a look at what Tobin Harshaw wrote in the New York Times' “Opinionater” column:
“It was a bit like planning the dream wedding only to have a hurricane rip away the chapel roof as you make your way down the aisle.”
He also offers useful links to what other reformacenti had to say:
Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute gives a “thoughtful, respectful and probing” analysis:
“Call this a teachable moment, but even with ABC’s best-laid plans to kickstart the debate about health care reform and not allow the “Prescription for America” special to become an “infomercial,” as many have complained – the president spent more than twice as much time as his questioners vaguely answering or not answering the questions asked of him. But the network consistently presented the event as part of the need to fix a “broken system.” When asked, every one of the 164 hand-picked audience members said they felt that health care needed to be changed.”
And further …
“While Obama had to field some difficult questions — from the audience and ABC — he faced no Republican critics of his proposals. The network also allowed him to dominate the program with long-winded and vague answers. Out of the 75 minutes the network dedicated over the two programs (commercials excluded), the president managed to take 60 percent of that time: 45 minutes to give 19 vague responses – not exactly the “dialogue” advertised by ABC …”
Scarecrow at FireDogLake’s Oxdown Gazette, however, thinks the network lured the president into a devilish trap:
“For its part, ABC insisted on having Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer, instead of informed, qualified health care experts, guide the conversation. That was a mistake, but not the worst of ABC’s offensive conduct. Sawyer’s main contribution was to introduce her own uninformed biases/opinions in framing issues and introducing questioners. Gibson’s primary role was to reveal his own misconceptions and then literally read talking points from a Republican letter — an obvious ransom extracted after days of Republican whining about giving the President air time on a critical public issue.”
And as far as trading "Good Morning America" for "Healthcare at Night" ...
“Gibson’s other role was to interrupt the President every few minutes to announce a commercial break. The all too frequent commercial interruptions served as an apt metaphor for how private commercial interests demand our attention and extract their profits while limiting our ability to discuss critical public policy issues.”
Harshaw’s full column can be found here.
