Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart and now the N.Y.Times

October 3, 2012

Link emailed to David Firestone-editor of article Closing the Government to save face

Public Editor (Ombudsman)

Margaret Sullivan

Dear Ms Sullivan

Yesterdays lead article that a solution was at hand,Boehner Pledges to Avoid Default, Republicans Say , seems to be another un-sourced misfire, now clearly refuted by Boehner.   This means the problem I describe below becomes more pressing  When the Times becomes part of the problem by gratuitously increasing partisan rancor with sophomoric name calling, it only steels the resolves of Republicans.   

A variation of an ad hominem diversion is one that attempts to define a political position by the most outlandish statement of an individual who is identified with the group.  This is the usual stuff of entertainer-pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart, and reaps fame and fortune for its skillful practitioners.  Of course, this successful way to build audience share has its down side.  Those listeners form a sort of cult, reveling in their destruction of the legitimacy of the "other side," often by scathing ridicule.

While such personalities defray criticism by saying they are entertainers, what could be the N.Y. Times' rationale for doing the same thing under the byline of the editorial page editor in the article, "Closing the Government to Save Face."  Let me append my (expanded) comment, that was published along with the hundreds cheering on Mr. Firestone's article:

What a quote to base an article: "“We’re not going to be disrespected,” Representative Stutzman said. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Of all sound bites spoken over this debt ceiling showdown,  the editors choose one by someone who could not articulate a substantive objections to ACA, and extrapolates from his inane statement that this is the central reason for the demand that the law be held back for a year to allow a re-evaluation.

Have the editors even read the article in today's Times that discloses that ACA, ".....will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance." Thus the central justification of this law is diminished by political and constitutional reality- something that could have been anticipated.

One can criticize the Republican leadership in these states, yet the benefits of this law have been dramatically reduced by such decisions.  What is ignored, replaced by focusing ridicule on the childlike petulance of the quoted congressman, are the actual consequences of this law.  There are provisions such as one that I wrote about that relate to existing Medicare practice that changes the doctor patient relationship. It will increase diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment, with adverse consequences to those with the expected false positives described in this article: "Normal Aging or Disease? the Demarcation Fades." ACA's causing a shortage in primary physicians will increase  "Boutique practice" which will result in reduced quality of service to middle income Medicare clients.  We are only now starting to be able to examine the reality of this legislation, a process that is not being done as such issues are reduced to the most simplistic personal sound bites. 

Opinion is different than news articles, with advocacy of one side accepted, yet this greater latitude does not obviate all ethical standards for editorial content.   Denying that serious valid objections to ACA may be the cause of taking the extreme steps that have been done is to exacerbate mutual anger, to validate the tribal mentality that fuels the war of words between political parties we are seeing today.   The reality of the structural adverse consequences of ACA, many that have been articulated in this newspaper over the years, should not be overshadowed by the inevitable person animosities which exist on both sides.  This law will  have deep cultural effects that go beyond medical care,  redefining how individuals view the infirmities that are an inevitable part of the human condition.

The Times, if it continues to adopt the glib style of the mentioned media personalities, will have abandoned one of the remaining public venues for productive evaluation of complex issues.  I suggest given the consequences of this stalemate, that the Public Editor's mandate includes addressing this.

Al Rodbell