News Literacy in Action
A consumer’s responsibility to seek the truth should mirror a journalist’s obligation to tell the truth. This marriage represents the ideal highway of communication between two factions important to “organized community journalism” in a free and self-governing nation (Kovach & Rosenstiel 32). While news literacy is contingent on two parts working together, journalists are responsible for the verification process in its efforts to “become a force in empowering citizens with the information they need to effectively take part in self-government” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 33). One such example is the nation-wide conversation of America’s healthcare system. Consumers rely on the media to keep them abreast of issues surrounding healthcare. But the political slants coupled with the press coverage that regurgitate those views without verifying the information make it difficult for consumers to come to an informed decision.
A clear understanding of news literacy will help consumers critically analyze information to come to an informed decision about issues that impact them the most. The verification process used to analyze media should involve direct evidence, transparency, independence, accountability, the ability to distinguish between uninformed and informed authoritative commentary as well as opinion journalism versus actual news. Through careful scrutiny of several media platforms, consumers can determine that while a single-payer healthcare plan appears to be an attractive fix to America’s health care concerns, the criticisms and facts outweigh the current vague benefits –– rendering the plan unfeasible for now.
In an online segment “Both Sides Spin CBO Numbers,” on Factcheck.org, Jake Tapper used direct evidence to show deceptive language that authoritative sources used when discussing the healthcare issue. To highlight the complexities surrounding healthcare and the confusion guiding many uninformed consumers, Tapper’s 2:38 online segment debunked some lawmaker’s interpretation of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) assessment — an impartial governmental body that offers budgeting advice. Tapper verifies the CBO actually reads “over 15 million insured will no longer opt to pay for the Republican’s healthcare version because the penalty of having the insurance would be eliminated,” rather than Bernie Sanders’ version which states, “[the CBO says] this bill would throw 22-million Americans off health insurance.”. In reading the actual verbiage of the CBO, Tapper provides direct evidence to support an opposing option to the single healthcare model. Tapper also de-legitimizes Sanders’ authoritative voice tainting the senator’s credibility as an informed source. Tapper warns politicians about misinforming the public with a finger wave and a well-known quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “a reminder to you politicians on both sides –– you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not you own facts.” The segment is an example of how reporters and consumers should follow a story over time especially as it relates to politicians and their rhetoric. Tapper should be credited with “opening the refrigerator” on the erroneous statement, but Sanders’s misinterpretation of facts should alert consumers to beware of his partisan political gap and question how he may represent his new single-player health plan.
Unlike the Sanders example, some sources passed the verification process as named, independent and authoritative sources. CNN Live’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a medical doctor in Wyoming, who sided with many opponents who argued that single-payer healthcare would extend wait times for important medical services. “As a surgeon in Wyoming, I have operated on people from Canada who can’t afford to wait the time for their free operations”(Barrasso). Barrasso is part of a multiple consensus denouncing the plan but offers an additional layer of verification, first as an informed and authoritative physician, also as a named senator who is an eyewitness to the woes of the proposed single-payer bill. Barrasso also appears less self-interested than his Republican counterparts because of his first-hand experience with patients. Additionally, Blitzer, and his producers, provided context to a subject usually bogged down by vague jargon. The relatable example did well in “keep[ing] the news comprehensive and in proportion” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 242). This CNN interview is an example of media that incorporates an authoritative, named and independent source that makes informs conclusions about the flaws in a single payer system –– therefore providing its viewers with important verified information about some of the shortcomings of the single-payer plan.
NPR’s Michel Martin also relied on a doctor as a verified and transparent source in her All Things Considered podcast, “A Canadian Doctor Explains How Her Single Payer Health Plan Works.” As an authoritative, named and independent source, the physician, Danielle Martin offered direct evidence to describe her experience as a Canadian currently working and living under a single-payer health care plan. While advocating the single payer plan, the physician admitted issues of rationing and delayed medical care Canadians face. “You are absolutely right, when people have a non-urgent issue in Canada, sometimes they wait. Sometimes they wait, in my opinion, too long.” (Martin) Through this medium, American consumers are able to hear first hand accounts about wait times of up to 18 months for preventative health visits. News consumers can list Martin as a multiple source that provides direct evidence that corroborates the senator’s claims. Listeners should also interpret her willingness to point out the flaws in single-payer as transparent.
Focusing on the U.S., Politico’s article, “Sanders’ Single Payer Push splits Democrats” forces consumers and reporters to go against their own beliefs when Democratic Dianne Feinstein bucked her Party’s consensus and held off on approving the bill. “My understanding is, the cost of single-payer is enormous.” (Schor) Feinstein also told Politico that she would have to see the price tag before signing on to the bill. Schor put aside any news media biases in asking Feinstein, a Democrat, if she was in favor of the plan. At the same time, Feinstein exemplifies transparency as an independent sources as to why she was going against her Congressional colleagues. Part of news literacy requires you to challenge your own beliefs. This story should challenge Democratic news consumers who may have considered Feinstein a politician who would have aligned herself automatically with her Democratic colleagues.
Opinion journalism such as Scott Atlas’ piece in The Wall Street Journal titled, “The Health Reform That Hasn’t Been Tried,” which provides alternatives to the single-payer health plan while denouncing it, can also provide a persuasive argument to influence consumers. The article include fact-based statistics and a number of reports that suggests alternative options rather than partisan rhetoric. However, consumers still need to identify if the writer is independent when verifying the source. Atlas’ usage of emotionally charged words such as “liberalized health savings accounts,” and his sarcastic questions such as, “are you supposed to shop around from the back of the ambulance?” both represent persuasive language. In line with opinion-journalism Atlas’ arguments are one-sided and although his information is verified and accountable as a fellow of the Hoover Institute, Conservative billionaires heavily fund the policy institute, according to Inside Philanthropy, making his independence questionable. Atlas is not shy about his biases or efforts to convince consumers of his point –– which should alert readers. Consumers should be aware of the difference between news and opinion journalism. In an era where “transparency is the new objectivity” as noted in the Economist’s article, “Foxification of the news,” it is important that consumers understand and consider the motives of sources who are not independent when making a decision on an issue, however persuasive the argument. (Economist)
Sometimes it is difficult to verify some persuasive material, such as Rose Ann De Moro’s Twitter post that boasts a debunking of Assemblymember Anthony Rendon of California. The five-point fact-checker flyer claims to disprove Rendon’s reasons for opposing single-payer. While the “facts” may accomplish discrepancies in his arguments, there author is not named instead the title reads “Nurses to Rendon: You are Wrong,” therefore disqualifying any accountability. There is no information as to where the information comes from, nullifying the flyer as a verifiable source. Also, the single study the flyer offers as proof to the nurse’s claims comes directly from the Certified Nurses Assistant (CNA) making the flyer less independent. Many consumers get their information from social media and while tempting, it’s important to verify the sources. Should Twitter followers come across this flyer, the I’M VAIN process will easily disqualify the tweet as verified information.
The same can be said for the Fox article, “Single-payer health care means you might be denied surgery for being too fat — no, really,” that attempts to masquerade as journalism. This blatant example of counterfeit journalism compares a U.K. proposal that suggests overweight surgical patients lose weight before undergoing a procedure with rationing and then continues to make unverified and parallels to the non-existent single-payer plan in the U.S. At a final attempt to shore up support, Pipes concludes with an emotional plea to advocates of the plan, “Supporters of single-payer health care should realize the error of their ways, because single-payer isn’t a shortcut to universal health care.” (Pipes) If using the deconstructive method to analyze this piece, consumers would recognize that the headline is out of context, and the writer, Sally Pipes is not a journalist but instead an author whose latest book title reads, “The Way Out of Obamacare,” making her non-independent and a good candidate for political bias. Consumers could not say she is informed because she does not state any relevant information outside of the obesity proposal in the U.K. to site why the single-care will not benefit Americans. Nor is the piece tagged as opinion further tucking the read into counterfeit opinion.
Awareness of the verification process is imperative in becoming an informed news consumer. Since the arguments for and against the single-payer health plan straddle the United States’ two-party political system it is easy for consumers to fall into the polarizing abyss politicians and sometimes media perpetuate. However, applying all aspects of the verification process such as identifying a source’s interest, confirming the accuracy and truth of a statement and scrutinizing a sources authority all constitute good journalism and news literacy. In addition, reporters covering politics can often regurgitate the partisan beliefs of politicians, giving weight to John Avalon’s suggestion that “Hyper-partisans are playing with forces that can easily get out of control and threaten to destabilize our democracy” in the book, Wingnuts. Recognizing our own personal challenges such as confirmation biases and partisan credibility gaps add to enhanced literacy both for the news disseminators and consumers. As our media continues to evolve, consumers and journalist must continue to embrace news literacy. Collective forces between community and media create an informed and knowledgeable public. “Each of us knows only a little bit, but together we can achieve remarkable feats.” (Avlon, ix)
