Thursday, June 18, 2009

ABC Officially Gives Up All Pretenses At Being An Objective News Organization

No, seriously.  It's done.  I first saw this on the Drudge Report, but it spread quickly:

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Basically, ABC gave Obama an entire hour during prime time to pitch his health care plan, and several other shows over the next few days were also slated to support that same topic.  The Chief of Staff of the RNC, Ken McKay, rightfully objected:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform "town hall" at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC's web news "will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda." This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president's health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, the RNC requested the opportunity to present the other side of the argument during the show.  ABC denied that request.  McKay suggested that unless the DNC paid for this air time, it might look suspiciously like ABC was turning this into a one-sided 'glorified infomercial'.  What was ABC's response?

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Really?  The questions from the audience will provide 'all sides' of the issue?  Well, that's a relief, because we all know that it is simply impossible to cherry pick questions from an audience (or cherry pick the whole audience itself).

But hey, let's hear it for that 'complete editorial control'!  I mean, it's not like ABC donated money to Obama over McCain by a factor of over 30 to 1 or anything, right?  Surely with that 'complete editorial control' ABC will at least illuminate the significant split within the Democrat party on this issue, right?

Riiiiiight...

Michelle Malkin calls out ABC on their own self-professed ability to remain legitimate with a perfectly reasonable suggestion:

ABC News says it welcomes "thoughtful" and "diverse" voices on its White House health care special.

Why not include ABC 20/20 anchor John Stossel? I have confirmed that he has not been asked to be a part of the programming.

Why not?

When it comes to thoughtful and diverse perspectives on freedom, government, and the marketplace, no one matches Stossel.

This is an outstanding suggestion.  John Stossel has a long track record of fair and honest reporting, blowing holes in a lot of topics that other people wouldn't touch, even when he's forced to revise his own opinions of the facts he learns in the process.  It's hard to imagine how ABC could refuse putting one of their top investigative journalists on such an important event, and Stossel would be someone that even the Right would likely accept.  I certainly trust him to call bull when he sees it, and I suspect most other people would, too.  But it won't happen since Stossel already did a report on government control of health care back in 2007.  Some excerpts:

There are many problems with health insurance, but that doesn't mean we should put the government in control. If it's decided that health care should be paid for with tax dollars, then it's up to the government to decide how that money should be spent. There's only so much money to go around, so the inevitable result is rationing.

It's just the law of supply and demand. Lowering prices increases demand. Lowering the price to nothing pushes demand through the roof. Author P.J. O'Rourke said it best: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

When health care is free, governments deal with all that increased demand by limiting what's available.

The reality of "free" health care is that people wait.

Government is less the answer to our health-care crisis than the problem. It was our government that helped to create the absurd system in which two out of three Americans get health insurance through their employer. In a country where four in 10 Americans change their job every year, this system makes little sense; it leaves people like Readling without coverage when they need it most.

…The more people control the money they spend on their own health care, the more people shop around and the more providers compete to attract patients by lowering prices while improving quality. It's putting individuals in control that could turn our health-care sector into the vibrant, competitive marketplace that we see in nearly every other area of our economy.

After all, it's our body and our health. Shouldn't we be in control of how our health-care dollars are spent?

Harvard's Herzlinger said, "Who should decide whether you live or die? Do you want the government to decide? Do you want a health insurer to decide? Who's gonna make that decision? Is it gonna be a government? Is it gonna be an insurer? Or is it gonna be you and me?"

Putting individuals in control of our health rather than our employers or the government is a better way to cure what ails America's health system.

No, no, John Stossel won't be allowed anywhere near this event.  The All Barack Channel can't allow that.

If you feel like commenting to ABC, here you go:

ABC SWITCHBOARD (ASK FOR NEWSROOM) 212.456-7777
NEWSROOM fax 212.456.2795
ABC News president David Westin's fax: 212-456-4292

Westin is on twitter at @David_Westin.

Send your feedback/suggestions to ABC News here.

But guess what?  That's right, you got it: it gets even worse.  Red State reports that locking out the opposing viewpoint on the show itself wasn't good enough for ABC (emphasis mine):

So, not only is ABC not planning to include opposing voices to President Obama's healthcare proposals during its special presentation next week — though ABC does claim "those in the audience" will ask questions of the president — it is refusing to even allow groups that oppose Obamacare to purchase paid for advertisements to air during the healthcare special.

ABC has officially given up all pretenses of being an objective news organization.


logo courtesy Logobama via Michelle Malkin

What's also interesting to observe is the resounding silence echoing from the other networks.  If there was truly a sense of competition between all of these 'news' outlets in being the best, wouldn't we be hearing complaints from NBC, CNN, or others of ABC getting unfair access?  My guess is the silence is the result of the fact that (aside from Fox) they're all essentially the same thing: voluntarily state-run propaganda organizations.

There's my two cents.



Related Reading:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/abc-the-all-barack-channel/
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/16/abc-to-make-obamacare-infomercial/
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/state-run-media-wont-allow-gop-to-air.html
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/16/abc-the-all-barack-channel-earns-a-new-logo/

No comments: