Religious Freedom vs New Health Care Mandate

So, we all know that with the new Health Care Reform implementation, employees of religion-affiliated institutions will be required to have access to birth control coverage. The strict Catholics who do not support the use of contraceptives or any sort of birth control are in an uproar about this because they feel that "their religious freedoms are being violated," blah blah blah. Not that I'm not sensitive to their specific beliefs, but I have been more interested in tracking how the various news outlets have chosen to add their spin to what could be an objective story. I just never thought the news outlets would be so blatant with their slanting and framing of the story.

The Washington Post's coverage of the issue is clearly leftist-- supporting Obama's decision, bringing quantitative polls into the picture that show public support of this, publishing the support of specific convents and other Catholic institutions, and essentially presenting Obama as the fair and compromising Messiah.

Of course, blogs posts from outlets on the other side of the aisle are clearly right-leaning-- opposing Obama's decision, bringing in quantitative data and qualitative interviews with Bishops that show dissent, and essentially presenting Obama as a socialist devil bent on world destruction, one religious freedom at a time.

In class we have been discussing how bias may just be perception. I tend to believe the opposite. Every news outlet is biased in some way and their coverage of stories is no different. I will admit though, it seems that liberal news outlets are a little more balanced in their reporting of all of the facts, but the influence from bias on both sides can be very influential on the public.

We discussed examples in class about the framing of news coverage. One that illustrates a story about an adolescent male in poverty might evoke public feelings of detachment while one that illustrates the same story, but of a county's poverty-stricken population might evoke feelings of concern and an urgency to aid. Similarly, the conservative blog frames the story as though there is great dissent from all Catholics and that President Obama is being insensitive to their religious freedoms by citing that some of the convents viewed his compromise as "insulting." The liberal blog from the Washington Post frames the story so that the Catholic men and women are the victims to the insensitive male Bishops who are doing more to control with their top-down approach to govern the Catholic women's bodies. It illustrates that 57 percent of Catholics support the legislation and presents Obama as being very considerate in his consciousness clauses of the bill.

While the majority of the public remains ignorant of politics and key political events, they could easily read these articles and be significantly influenced-- this is the main point of our discussions thus far in class. Should the media be more objective in their reporting? Should the public rise to the occasion and become the informed and responsible citizens the Framers never thought they could be? I would argue a little of both. The public has an obligation to be informed, but like Jefferson stated, if they don't, it is the job of the institutions to educate them. Are they really doing a sufficient job in presenting balanced media coverage? I highly doubt it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=1&ref=contraception

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/16/religious-freedom-vs-new-health-care-mandate-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-catholic-league’s-bill-donohue-debate/#more-83510

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/catholic-bishops-contraception_b_1268683.html

"Romneycare" versus "Obamacare"... and a little bit about healthcare?

"Romneycare" versus "Obamacare"... and a little bit about healthcare?

(Article: http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2012/01/29/why-mitt-romneys-electability-is-not-inevitable/)

Well true to the political bias that most display when selecting news sources...I decided to look at our handy dandy recommended blogging guide, ultimately choosing "Redstate." Might as well embrace my inner conservative. I mean, as Jill can attest, I am the one to say "No we cant sit on the blue metro seat, lets sit on the red one...RED...power color." It was a joke at the time but it is an example of how conservatives really respond to elephants, the color red, and states rights.

This growing partisanship in the United States electorate is just baffling, I mean its not like our culture embraces hanging out with like minded people and perpetuating "fads", however that is besides the point. Reading Redstate today, well it was refreshing to not read another blog about how Romney is the savior to our political party or how Democrats do not know anything. It actually attack the heart of a potential debate in American politics and pointing out the hypocrisy in partisanship when we are all moderate at heart. In this case blogger Ben Howe confronts Governor Mitt Romney on his major weakness: The Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law.  The bill, known by most as Romneycare, is the basis for the much "maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", otherwise affectionately known as Obamacare.

Howe, comments how Romey supporters claim that Romneycare vs Obamacare isn’t about socialized medicine vs the free market. They say it’s actually the core of the Federalist struggle and that "Romney will channel Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and march onto the capital steps, fulfilling the dreams and desires of tea partiers nationwide by finally standing up and saying, “Enough is enough! Let the state’s make their decisions Obama! Your days of tyranny are at an end!” And they all rejoiced." WHERE THIS ARTICLE REALLY GETS INTERESTING....Howe offers up some main points that the Romney campaign will use to battle in the general election...and it’s all right out of the Obama playbook and talking points. How about that for some added center left/center right equality.  Their plan actually seems to be to take the fight to the capital by saying:

• "Public health insurance didn’t crowd out employer sponsored insurance in Massachusetts
• That any mandate, be it for public schools or for car insurance, is evidence that a mandate is perfectly acceptable even when it’s a mandate related to your right to exist.
• That costs are being contained and kept down as a result of the bill and that the uninsured are now insured and the free rides are over.
• That the mandate is only a technicality because anyone can choose not to be a part of it by simply paying a fee every year.
• That the people of Massachusetts wanted healthcare reform and that a duly elected legislature passed the bill and thus it’s perfectly acceptable and reasonable."

If these defenses sound familiar it’s because they are virtually identical to the defenses we heard for a year and a half leading up to the passage of Obamacare. So get ready for Elections 2012, a battle to identify center right from center left, because lets face it there is truly no difference in the 21st century. Ultimately, despite the attacks that this article does make from time to time, the blog post does demonstrate how both political parties are in reality identical books, however option B used a theasaurus for every eighth word. This is a case where the media covers something of significance  and what I would in fact consider modern day muck-racking...journalists and bloggers going out to identify the lack of continuity in political speech by politicians. Healthcare was an issue that bloggers and media analysts alike converged on in the past few years, debating the mandate, and the constitutionality of it all. It became an issue that was fought on partisan lines when in reality there wasn't much difference in what everyone was seeking when you looked at the moderates and avoided the fringes. I commend Howe for stepping up against his political party and partisan blogging and highlighting the issues at hand, if more bloggers took on their own party and helped to identify their weaknesses and strengths then the debates in the coming Presidential election could be quite substantive.

I guess we will just have to see how this whole healthcare deal works out come September...

TL;DR

     There’s quite a menagerie to American politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right, the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.

No, Noah. They're not worthy.

     But, please, don’t take my word for it. The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).

     I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.

     I’d have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job. Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.

     There were plenty of cockfights that the media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and “immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.

     In the first question (“Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers. Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)

     If you know anything about history, you’d remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good strategy. A classic.

     Shortly thereafter, we get to the prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the latter.

     Not to say there was any real political consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their posturing.

     And the real problem with the American media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just events.

     At this point a question is asked concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”

     Santorum responds that Paul “obviously wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.

     Let’s pause for a moment and go back to history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these noble goals.

     Who, Mr. Santorum, was listening?

     Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2^nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.

      “Well you have stock in these companies. Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.

     In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich, wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.” He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down, proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault, right?

     In the end, they both looked like asses—with or without the animal puns.

     Now, in the animal world, we get to see a prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:

     Returning from commercial break, Blitzer confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.

     Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator, Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that. You did.”

     I’d paraphrase here, but I can display Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.”

     Romney skips the dove part and strikes like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

    Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?

_________________________________________________________

*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.