The Media on Stupak-Pitts: Theatrical, Not Factual

Or was it also a period during which legislators hammered out actual laws potentially altering millions of Americans' lives--and women's in particular?

Judging from the presentation by much of the mainstream media, one would guess only the former. In the midst of foaming at the mouth at the political give-and-take involved in health care reform, many of our nation's prominent pundits neglected to properly inform the public that Stupak's language allowed for a major incursion into women's rights. They may have even relished the loss represented by Stupak-Pitts, because it made for a tense and gripping narrative that tempered the progressive victory of the legislation's passage.

The success of the vile Stupak-Pitts amendment can be attributed to several causes, many of which are documented on this site.  But one important factor in the problem is the stalwart refusal of our corporate-funded political media to spend much energy analyzing the ramifications of policy on real Americans, instead focusing on personalities, juicy ideological battles, and so-called "political capital." Overarching all of those topics, the media's primary obsession is on certain repeated narratives of victory and defeat, based on preconceived notions about liberals (weak, overly empathetic, willing to compromise), conservatives (moral, pragmatic, staunch) and the way politics works. To actually learn the details of the bill and various proposed amendments last week, the public would have had to do some digging. But to find out whether Nancy Pelosi seemed powerful and how Obama's statement has affected congress's mood, just flip on any channel (except, of course, for MSNBC when Rachel Maddow is on--she's part of the exception, one of a few sane voices.)

Today's reporting creed equates objectivity with a bizarre "balance": giving two sides of a contentious issue equal space and not fact-checking either. It's a particularly noxious M.O. for coverage of abortion. Based on media coverage alone, one could easily forget that abortion is a legal, protected medical procedure undergone by a large percentage of American woman. Instead, reporters treat it as the "political football" with which Congressman Jerrod Nadler angrily accused conservatives of playing. Pundits apply the same "football" mentality to issues like gay rights, poverty and immigration, ignoring the human crises beneath the rhetoric.

When I switched from C-SPAN to CNN on Saturday night, the network's weekend anchors looked somewhat bewildered and baffled as they narrated the vote that was occurring. Not to pick on CNN's Saturday-night team, but I immediately thought they were confused because they're not used to actually talking about the details of policy. Instead, pundits are accustomed to parroting ridiculous notions about which way the wind is blowing,creating a powerful, self-satisfied echo chamber. Just last week, political journalists were absolutely entranced by two gubernatorial elections as somehow representing the tenor of the entire country. Much of the time spent on these races could have been spent telling Americans what exactly was at stake in the health care vote.

For this reason, many liberal-leaning and pro-choice TV watchers and newspaper readers woke up on Sunday morning thinking that Stupak was no worse than Hyde. They had been focused on the drama of the bill playing out in the media, and therefore saw the anti-abortion amendment as a tough concession that didn't much alter the status quo. Only as more information, much of it coming from feminists, began to circulate did media outlets begin to pick apart the actual language of the bill, realizing too late that Stupak potentially goes much, much further than Hyde. Oops.

Blogger Digby writes about how the blow of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is part of a dominant narrative among the Washington elite--a "village" of politicians, lobbyists, and media:

Any legislation such as health care reform must therefore be tempered by a liberal sacrifice, something real, a principle that will make them hate themselves and loathe each other for having done it. It cannot be a clean victory, lest they come to believe they can do more. In the end, the "moral" must always be that you cannot go too far left.

In another post, Digby also calls Stupak-Pitts "an object lesson to liberals, particularly women, for getting too uppity." She's right: another reason the still largely white, establishment and male Washington press corps wasn't appalled by Stupak-Pitts? They see women as a special-interest group.

This weekend's narrative of gain and loss by liberals makes for good, theatrical storytelling. But more importantly, it placates a media which is conservative with a small "c"--interested in keeping things just as they are, interested in a Washington whose power balance they  understand. And what they understand, as Digby said, is that liberals can't just win and "compromise" always comes in the form of a "bargaining-chip" loss for a disenfranchised demographic who reliably votes Democratic.

If more people had known in advance about the dangers of Stupak Pitts, at the very least, we might have had a less stunned public on Sunday morning. And if the political media treated abortion as a medical procedure as well as a political issue, we might not have gone down this road in the first place. Once again, much of our media fell down on the job.