via: stoptheaclu
Recently in the Washington Post Ceci Connolly did a wonderful job proving that she is a member of the vast left wing conspiracy trying to protect Obamacare but didn’t do such a good job proving her legitimacy as a journalist. At issue is her story about the meanies in talk radio that she is claiming is trying to “frighten seniors” about Obama’s healthcare policies.
The main problem with Connolly’s story is that she offers little proof that talk radio is trying to “scare seniors.” But she did spend an inordinate amount of space explaining away the very Obama policies that are responsible for scaring seniors, namely the end-of-life counseling and healthcare rationing in the bill.
Connolly uses an activist’s rhetoric as if she is confronting “the enemy” right at the outset of her “report.”
A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama’s calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life “rationing” and even “euthanasia.”
Notice that Connolly presents talk radio as a single thing instead of the many thousands of hosts, stations, and media corporations employing them that it really is? This is an activist’s tool, using the veritable “they” to represent the enemy. Obviously, Connolly is taking the side of those opposing talk radio by employing the meme that talk radio is a single entity that has launched a “campaign to scare seniors.”
Not only does she take an activist’s tone throughout the piece by making excuses for Obamacare and declaring what a great idea it is, she also fails to prove her main contention that talk radio has launched a “campaign to scare seniors.” Connolly does give a single example of a radio show that discussed the issues at hand, but she offers that and only that.
One would think that if Connolly was trying to lay this guilt trip on all of talk radio that she’d have a few examples to buttress her claim. Of course, having examples to prove her case is something that journalists do and Connolly is not interested in journalism with this piece. No, with this one she is interested in advocating for Obamacare not proving her contention that some sort of “campaign to scare seniors” is being undertaken by “talk radio.”
The dust up was caused by provisions in the House bill for the government to pay for end-of-life counseling and the cost-cutting ideas promulgated by the president. Conservatives are warning against the government having any part in such services as well as warning that cost-cutting measures must result in the rationing of healthcare. The main question with the end-of-life services is one of propriety. Does anyone want the U.S. government involving itself in telling patients how and/or when to die? It seems a dangerous road to travel to invite government to involve itself in such things and seems a step toward government sponsored euthanasia and refusal of medical care.
But, according to Connolly, such services are a great idea. After all, she spends several paragraphs quoting all sorts of lefty groups saying how wonderful it is for the government to legislate how-to-die counseling.
But in the end, here, what we have is Connolly making the claim that there is some vast “campaign” by “talk radio” to “scare seniors” yet she utterly fails at proving the case for her main contention. She just says it’s so and moves on from there. It isn’t good journalism. But it is great advocacy.
