Dear press: stop equivocating

[Updated below]

[Updated again]

I’ve been fortunate in that immediately after throwing up my last two posts, a glaring example of the things I’ve been criticizing pops up.

Today’s example comes from the New York Times and it’s pretty much a textbook case of the press being afraid to call a spade a spade.

The sentence in question appears in an otherwise generally fair primer on the health care debate. Here’s the offending statement (in its original context):

Conservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.

These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.”

Bolding mine. I know there’s a school of thought in journalism that says if you can have someone else give voice to particular concern, it’s stronger than the paper making the assertion itself. In cases like this, though, allowing a spokesperson for the AARP to say it doesn’t help at all; they’re a stakeholder in the debate and since they’re pro-reform, it’s likely that anti-reform forces would simply discount disregard their remarks.

The Times, however, is supposed to be able to speak with an authoritative voice and when the case is clear, state, in no uncertain terms, what the truth is. “These concerns appear to be unfounded” is mealy mouthed and spineless. It’s been proven that the “death panel” assertion is an outright lie. Why can’t the Times simply say, “this assertion is false” or “this statement isn’t true”? It’s really not that hard.

Update: Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo catches the Washington Post sitting on the fence in regards to the “death panels” claim.

Update: The Los Angeles Times does a much better job in its fact check piece on health care today. Here’s the section that deals with the “death panels”:

Does the legislation include provisions to encourage senior citizens to commit suicide?

No. This has become one of the most misleading, inflammatory claims made in the healthcare debate, advanced repeatedly by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Republican lawmakers working to stoke fears among seniors.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) recently suggested that the Democratic healthcare bill would “put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” There is no such provision.

The House bill would give seniors on Medicare the choice to sit down with a doctor for an “advance care planning consultation” every five years to discuss options should they become seriously ill or unable to make medical decisions. Topics could include the development of a living will and directives for care.

“These are important discussions everyone should have so they are fully informed and can make their wishes known,” Dr. J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., said in a statement. “That’s not controversial. It’s plain old-fashioned patient-centered care.”

The provision is endorsed by the AARP.

Another nice thing about the piece: If it’s unclear how a piece of the legislation will work, they say it’s unclear, and then explain why that’s so. I daresay some outlets wouldn’t have gone on record as saying “we don’t know”.