Facing South's Sue Sturgis made a national splash -- and helped change the health care debate -- with her piece yesterday investigating Sarah Palin's claim that Democratic reform bills included "death panels" that would lead to euthanasia of the elderly and disabled.
Many in the media quickly pointed out that Palin's claims weren't true. But Sturgis was the first to report that one of the biggest advocates of counseling for end-of-life care -- the provision that actually was in the Congressional legislation -- was none other than a pro-life Republican: Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. (Watch for a follow-up from Sue later today.)
Sturgis' piece had immediate impact, and offers an interesting look at how stories "move" in today's new media:
-- Shortly after Facing South ran Sturgis' piece, Firedoglake -- one of the biggest progressive blogs covering the health care debate -- placed it on their main page under the humorous title "Why does Johnny Isakson want to kill Sarah Palin's baby?"
* The Huffington Post soon followed, featuring Facing South's piece as a lead story in their politics coverage.
* Ezra Klein of The Washington Post quickly followed up with an interview of Sen. Johnny Isakson, in which the pro-life Republican frankly says that calling what's in the House bills euthanasia or death panels is "nuts."
* By the end of the day, TV personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC were showing how the "death panel" claim not only wasn't true, but was based on a widely-embraced concept of end-of-life care promoted by Republicans like Sen. Johnny Isakson.
* Today, the story is still rippling throughout the media landscape: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and National Public Radio have both run items highlighting Sen. Iskason's support for end-of-life care. (UPDATE: So have USA Today, Tapped and DailyKos)
It's a great example of how a well-reported and well-timed story -- even by a smaller non-profit media operation like ours -- can change the entire debate on an issue.
But a deeper question remains: How did Palin's obviously untrue allegations make it into the mainstream of media debate in the first place?
Many in the media quickly pointed out that Palin's claims weren't true. But Sturgis was the first to report that one of the biggest advocates of counseling for end-of-life care -- the provision that actually was in the Congressional legislation -- was none other than a pro-life Republican: Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. (Watch for a follow-up from Sue later today.)
Sturgis' piece had immediate impact, and offers an interesting look at how stories "move" in today's new media:
-- Shortly after Facing South ran Sturgis' piece, Firedoglake -- one of the biggest progressive blogs covering the health care debate -- placed it on their main page under the humorous title "Why does Johnny Isakson want to kill Sarah Palin's baby?"
* The Huffington Post soon followed, featuring Facing South's piece as a lead story in their politics coverage.
* Ezra Klein of The Washington Post quickly followed up with an interview of Sen. Johnny Isakson, in which the pro-life Republican frankly says that calling what's in the House bills euthanasia or death panels is "nuts."
* By the end of the day, TV personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC were showing how the "death panel" claim not only wasn't true, but was based on a widely-embraced concept of end-of-life care promoted by Republicans like Sen. Johnny Isakson.
* Today, the story is still rippling throughout the media landscape: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and National Public Radio have both run items highlighting Sen. Iskason's support for end-of-life care. (UPDATE: So have USA Today, Tapped and DailyKos)
It's a great example of how a well-reported and well-timed story -- even by a smaller non-profit media operation like ours -- can change the entire debate on an issue.
But a deeper question remains: How did Palin's obviously untrue allegations make it into the mainstream of media debate in the first place?
Awesome reporting by Ms. Sturgis and Facing South--a huge, timely, story.
As the Governor of the state that Sen. Johnny Isakson, Realtor (R) represents, Sonny Perdue should come clean--as he is supposedly educated. Allegedly he's a UGA grad, veterinarian, and former fighter pilot, but we've not seen a notarized birth certificate.
For anyone who cares about people--or has dealt with an aging parent facing end-of-life choices, for instance, Isakson's legislationn has been very important, and shows leadership. Why won't Sonny distance himself from these buffoons who are distorting it? Do the crazies make up the majority of Sonny's inner circle?
Sonny tried to elevate himself to Palin's status by fighting Georgia's taking federal stimulus money. He wanted to be amongst the real politicians, like secessionist Perry, unemployed Palin, and traveling lover-boy Sanford. Even Jindal pulled back from this ridiculousness. Stop flying around in the state's helicopter Sonny (we know you got your chopper license this year) and get grounded in what Georgia's people--mostly outside the capital crowd--are really facing. Their is a need for real leadership.
Maybe Perdue can re-open the GBI crime labs during our growing Georgia crime wave, help the fully-subscribed tech schools and colleges, and not furlough the teachers even more days. Something besides road building with the stimulus money could make a difference. Maybe real work on water conservation--trying to keep all the water from Florida and Alabama isn't a solution. Getting infant mortality ahead of Russia, or graduation rates past the 3rd world would be good. Looks like these problems are common to the southern states, where the birthers and deathers are most fired up right now. They'll see they're being played--but are these problems being fixed?
Pandering to the crazies marries Sonny to the Sanfords and Palins out there, and it will be remembered long after his failing governorship is gone.
August 11, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply
The problem with articles like this is avoiding the truth about who actually dictates polices for this administration. Disturbing statements from Ezekiel Emanuel such as,
"Services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
are typical in the mindset of extremist liberals who see health care as nothing more than an experiment. Misinterpreting Sarah Palin has become another avenue for the media to distract the
public from the true nut cases that influence policy in Washington.
August 11, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply
Dan,
Stop spinning. The many heinous Republican lies and distortions of the health care draft have been publicly debunked this week by every network (ABC did a thorough job tonight), the blogosphere and major market newspapers, with condemnation by several members of the medical community....there are no more ears for this kind of mischief.
Americans now know that Republicans will do anything to protect their corporate industry clients and kill much-needed patient-centric health reform...even serial lying, fomenting hostile anti-President Obama sentiment and promoting cruel distortions of fact to frighten old people. THAT is not the party of "family values, that is the untrustworthy party of NO.
August 11, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply
Toothfairy,
I am not a Republican.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a key health care advisor to the Obama administration. His history and current position with this administration has a lot to be desired. Please take the time to read, "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions", particularly the section involving "The Complete Lives System."
www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
This is a recent paper that discusses concepts and their ethical boundaries, concepts which should never be applied let alone considered.
Instead of the usual political rant try to take this subject a bit more seriously for it will affect your life, your loved ones and your country.
August 11, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply
First appointment to Death Panel.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/
August 12, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply
Dan et. al. -- are you saying that a private insurance company would pay for an organ transplant for a person permanently suffering from dementia? That person likely could not get insurance to begin with. I've just read both the PDF you linked to, and also the source of your Dr. Emanuel quote (different PDF - link below. This is the kind of "scarce medical resource" they are referring to.
The upshot is, if you can't get insurance due to poverty or "pre-existing condition", you can't get even fairly basic health care, or tests like mammograms and scans, unless you can pay out of pocket or go to overstretched A&Es and charity clinics. This is the gap the health care plan is addressing, as well as cheaper insurance offerings for embattled small businesses to offer their employees. Doesn't stop big firms from offering what they've been offering, doesn't stop a well-to-do family from purchasing what they want. Doesn't force doctors to take only their payments, or outlaw any treatments. It does analyse treatments for relative effectiveness, but that's because the FDA has been well co-opted and has not been performing due diligence.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
August 14, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply