Random Blather

Feverish Ravings of a Middle-Aged Mind
OCTOBER 16, 2009 12:51AM

What Are You Basing That On?

Rate: 3 Flag

Jon Stewart did a marvelous job--as per usual--in skewering the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular, and their absurd compulsion to partition debates into two sides, and then not actually state the facts for fear of being labeled "partisan."  "Let's leave it there," the news channels constantly say, leaving it with the viewers thinking that they've gotten the full story when, in fact, all they have is the sum of two people yelling at each other.

And the more I listen to the news, the more I want a reporter to simply say, "What are you basing that on?"

For example, on tonight's edition of "Countdown: with Keith Olbermann," Olbermann played a clip of Chuck Grassley telling us that, even though he's not a lawyer, he thinks that a "mandate" on a public health care option may be "unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment."  He had heard it from "a few lawyers."  Well Chuck, I kept thinking, if that's the case, which lawyers?  What exactly did they say?  How did they draw that conclusion?  How did they make that connection?

In short, what are you basing that on?  Or did you, as I suspect, simply pull that out of your nether regions because you are determined to make health care reform fail?

Similarly, Mary Landrieu, the Senator from Louisiana, was also clearly looking for cover for what appears to be a "No" vote on a public option.  When it was pointed out to her that something like 75% of the people want a public options, she said, "I think most people think a 'public option' means 'free health care,' and so of course everyone wants that."

And I ached, as usual, for the interviewer to bring her up short and say, "What are you  basing that on?"  Because I've been following this debate all along, I listened to President Obama's speech, I've listened to the various advocate of reform, and not once, never did anyone make any kind of equivalence between "public option" and "free health care."  Sen. Landrieu made that up out of whole cloth, as near as I can tell, and the reporter let her get away with it.

What are you basing that on, Senator?

Mr. Limbaugh, you've said that Barack Obama wants us to "bend over, grab our ankles" for his agenda; what are you basing that on?

Mr. Grassley, you've said health care reform will force people to "pull the plug on Grandma."  What are you basing that on?

Mr. Hatch, you've stated multiple times that health care reform is the first step in a determined march to "socialized medicine."  What are you basing that on?

(And more, I want a reporter to have the nerve to ask one of these clowns to define "socialism" for them, and to follow-up by saying, "Given that we're talking about the health and well-being of our fellow Americans, why is socialized medicine a bad thing?  What country with socialized medicine has gone communist?  Can you name one?  And no, Nazi Germany doesn't count.")

What are you people basing your sweeping, bigoted, lying opinions on?  Because it sure as hell isn't the facts.  And dammit, that's getting pretty tiresome.

Author tags:

news, mainstream media, opinion

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
you've probably noticed that people with a combination of brains and integrity don't often use bogus strawmen to bolster their arguments. I'm with you and Stewart...it makes me crazy to listen to them.
Excellent. I suspect reporters are afraid to ask that question lest they be blackballed for future interviews and television airtime.
yeah. the news refuses to report the facts, and instead presents opinions as facts.

what a country!
I also find it infuriating that reporters don't even ask follow up questions most of the time, much less press politicians to give their sources, etc. The only one I've seen do it recently is Anderson Cooper and even he is selective -- takes on the easier targets. Apparently it's all about fear of losing access. so much for a free press protecting our freedoms. sheesh.
Sometimes I want to stand in front of a politician and ask the same question until I get an actual answer. That's one of the things that I like about Rachel Maddow; she actually does that sometimes. You know, "I understand, Senator, but that wasn't my question," and then repeat it.
Of course it is possible to make the case (unpopular as it may be) that the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the health care insurance of its citizens or visitors. Much as it is possible to make the case that the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the education of the public.

I base that belief on the fact that the Constitution is often construed to limit the power of government, not expand it. And the Constitution can be debated, ad infinitum, as it has been for the past 230 years.

The debate is a worthwhile exercise. I only wish it was more civil, and more productive.
Jamie, if Senator Grassley--or indeed anyone--were trying to make that case, it might be worth listening to. Unfortunately, Grassley made it clear by what he said that he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. And when that happens, I want them to be pressed by the news folks. I mean, isn't that what they're there for? I can't do it; MSNBC isn't interested in putting a non-videogenic, overweight, middle-aged guy with an annoyingly nasal Yankee voice on the TV; they want them thar resonant baritones, vacuous though they be.