There was never any doubt in my mind that once PBS was moved by the Republicans to corporate sponsorship instead of full public funding, their content would inevitably grow to reflect the viewpoints of the people who wrote the checks.

It seems that insurance company investments are paying off in the healthcare debate. While this Frontline piece does address corporate abuses of their clients, the journalist who worked on it says it was altered to reflect insurance company interests, according to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter:

Last year, former Washington Post reporter T.R. Reid made a great documentary for the PBS show Frontline titled "Sick Around the World."

Reid traveled to five countries that deliver health care for all – UK, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan – to learn about how they do it.

Reid found that the one thing these five countries had in common – none allowed for-profit health insurance companies to sell basic medical coverage.

Frontline then said to Reid – okay, we want you to go around the United States and make a companion documentary titled "Sick Around America."

So, Reid traveled around America, interviewing patients, doctors, and health insurance executives.

The documentary that resulted – "Sick Around America" – aired Monday night on PBS.

But even though Reid did the reporting for the film, he was cut out of the film when it aired this week.

And the film didn't present Reid's bottom line for health care reform – don't let health insurance companies profit from selling basic health insurance.

They can sell for-profit insurance for extras – breast enlargements, botox, hair transplants.

But not for the basic health needs of the American people.

Instead, the film that aired Monday pushed the view that Americans be required to purchase health insurance from for-profit companies.

And the film had a deceptive segment that totally got wrong the lesson of Reid's previous documentary – Sick Around the World.

During that segment, about halfway through Sick Around America, the moderator introduces Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the lead health insurance lobby in the United States.

Moderator: Other developed countries guarantee coverage for everyone. We asked Karen Ignagni why it can't work here.

Karen Ignagni: Well, it would work if we did what other countries do, which is have a mandate that everybody participate. And if everybody is in, it's quite reasonable to ask our industry to do guarantee issue, to get everybody in. So, the answer to your question is we can, and the public here will have to agree to do what the public in other countries have done, which is a consensus that everybody should be in.

Moderator: That's what other developed countries do. They make insurers cover everyone, and they make all citizens buy insurance. And the poor are subsidized.

But the hard reality, as presented by Reid in Sick Around the World, is quite different than Ignagni and the moderator claim.

Other countries do not require citizens buy health insurance from for-profit health insurance companies – the kind that Karen Ignagni represents.

In some countries like Germany and Japan, citizens are required to buy health insurance, but from non-profit, heavily regulated insurance companies.

And other countries, like the UK and Canada, don't require citizens to buy insurance. Instead, citizens are covered as a birthright – by a single government payer in Canada, or by a national health system in the UK.

The producers of the Frontline piece had a point of view – they wanted to keep the for-profit health insurance companies in the game.

TR Reid wants them out.

“We spent months shooting that film,” Reid explains. “I was the correspondent. We did our last interview on January 6. The producers went to Boston and made the documentary. About late February I saw it for the first time. And I told them I disagreed with it. They listened to me, but they didn't want to change it.”

Thom Hartman interviews Russell Mokhiber about the Frontline controversy.

In response to my earlier post quoting Russell Mokhiber from Corporate Crime Reporter on the dispute over Frontline's "Sick in America" (which in turn quoted T.R. Reid, the journalist who worked on the story), Frontline sent this letter (you'll have to read all the way through to see Reid's response):

FRONTLINE takes a strongly different view of the characterization of its editorial disagreement with T.R. Reid as presented by Mr. Reid and Russell Mokhiber in the recent blog entry, “Something is Rotten at PBS” (Counter Punch, April 2, 2009).

That blog entry describes the dispute about FRONTLINE’s “Sick Around America” as a disagreement about the correct health care policy for the United States and says that FRONTLINE “had a point of view — they wanted to keep the for-profit health insurance companies in the game.” Those claims are not true and falsely characterize the reporting in the film.

“Sick Around America,” in fact, made no assertions about the path health care reform should take, but simply reported on the current state of health insurance in the country, focusing primarily on how inadequacies in the current private health insurance system, both for-profit and non-profit companies, were negatively impacting many Americans. Our reporting revealed that both non-profit and for-profit insurance companies were concerned with keeping costs down and maximizing their market share. As a result, both write policies that can be changed yearly based on the experience of the particular business in the case of employer-based coverage and both use medical underwriting (in all but five states) to reduce the number of sick or potentially sick individuals they cover. Both employ the practice of rescission, as we reported.

In his blog entry, Mr. Mokhiber makes this erroneous critique of one portion of the film:

During that segment, about halfway through Sick Around America, the moderator introduces Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the lead health insurance lobby in the United States.

Moderator: Other developed countries guarantee coverage for everyone. We asked Karen Ignagni why it can’t work here.

Karen Ignagni: Well, it would work if we did what other countries do, which is have a mandate that everybody participate. And if everybody is in, it's quite reasonable to ask our industry to do guarantee issue, to get everybody in. So, the answer to your question is we can, and the public here will have to agree to do what the public in other countries have done, which is a consensus that everybody should be in.

Moderator: That's what other developed countries do. They make insurers cover everyone, and they make all citizens buy insurance. And the poor are subsidized.

But the hard reality, as presented by Reid in Sick Around the World, is quite different than Ignagni and the moderator claim.

Other countries do not require citizens buy health insurance from for-profit health insurance companies – the kind that Karen Ignagni represents.

But Mr. Mokhiber made a factual error that seriously undercuts this critique. His argument rests on the assumption that Ms. Ignagni represents only for profit health insurance companies. In fact, her organization, America’s Health Insurance Plans, represents both for-profit and non-profit companies. FRONTLINE rejects Mr. Mokhiber’s assertion that we were misleading viewers in this section of the film.

I normally wouldn't butt into a response letter, but since Frontline's editors say this factual error "seriously undercuts" Reid's critique, I'll point out a few things. The first is, AHIP was the result of a merger between the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) and American Association of Health Plans (AAHP) - in other words, it's the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry. The HIAA ran the "Harry and Louise" advertisements that helped kill the Clinton health care reform.

Continue reading »

FireDogLake:

[The above clip is an excerpted bit from the Frontline examination of "The Torture Question." There are graphic images from photos taken at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, as well as some disturbing information presented in this documentary...]

For the Bush Administration, first and foremost, it has been consistently about maintaining a public level of plausible deniability for each and every scandal that has arisen during their tenure in office. Over and over, the phrase we have heard is that an official could not look into particular charges because of "an ongoing criminal investigation."

What that has meant, for close to seven years now, is that when a substantial problem arises in any executive agency, that problem is left to fester - for days, months, even years - while members of the Bush Administration sit back and bide their time, and allow the problem to continue unabated under the cloak of plausible deniability - unless and until someone outside the Administration begins to ask the tough questions that need to be asked.

Seymour Hersh has a blistering example of that directly from former Gen. Antonio Taguba that everyone should read in full. But I want to warn you up front, it is infuriating and utterly disgusting. Read full article here...

What if Paris Hilton did something and the traditional media didn't cover it? Would anyone miss it? Would anyone care?

As it turns out, no. I know what you're thinking: well, duh, Nicole. But in all seriousness, AP newswire decided to experiment with a "No Paris Hilton stories" policy for a week. They were braced for questions and complaints ... instead they got thanks, from media and consumers alike.

Now contrast that to this quote David Sirota found from an LA Times owner in the Frontline series on today's media:

"[The LA Times] has got these 22 foreign bureaus...That's not what readers want. Readers care about the local entertainment industry...They care about things like fashion...Where the problem is, is that the people who are writing the L.A. Times, they want to be writing about international events. They want to be writing long-term pieces about why Bush went to war in Iraq. And we're saying, and the people at Tribune are saying, there are other people writing those stories...Do we really need the L.A. Times devoting the resources it has to that story?"

Actually, yes, we DO need the LA Times (and other media) devoting resources to that. And as the AP example show, your consumers will thank you for it. Duh.

In a great new 4-part series titled News War, PBS Frontline examines the battle between the White House & the national media and how they both fight to set the national agenda. In the first part that aired on Tuesday, Lowell Bergman investigates the Plame affair and breaks down how the Bush administration manipulated the media, which, in turn, manipulated and exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Download | play Download | play

The entire first part can be streamed here. Check here for local listings and extended interviews.

In his first post over at Salon, Glenn discusses how Michael Gordon -- who, along with Judith Miller, penned one of the most influential and journalistically irresponsible WMD stories in the run-up to the war in the Times -- was used by BushCo to advance false WMD claims. More alarmingly, Glenn argues, he's fulfilling the same purpose when it comes to Iran.

Salon.com:

On the day that article was published, Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and he specifically cited Gordon and Miller's article as "evidence" that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in The New York Times this morning-this is — I don't — and I want to attribute The Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge… Read more…

RawStory:

"Big Brother is not watching you, but 10 members of a Virginia National Guard unit might be," according to the Army. The Manassas-based Guardsmen are on a one-year assignment to clamp down on both "official and unofficial Army Web sites for operational security violations."

The team, working "under the direction of the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell" hunts for "documents, pictures and other items that may compromise security" -- and then orders the parties to take the offensive content offline.

Continue reading »

Airing tonight on PBS @ 10 PM EST.

From PBS.com:

Five years after the attacks on 9/11 and the massive, multibillion-dollar reorganization of government agencies which followed, FRONTLINE and New York Times reporter Lowell Bergman investigates the domestic counterterrorism effort and asks whether we are any better prepared to prevent another catastrophic attack. Relying on interviews with high-level sources in the U. S. government, Bergman looks into the major cases brought inside the United States and reveals troubling flaws in what has been the largest reorganization of the government in half a century. The documentary focuses on who is the real enemy within the United States and whether we are prepared to defeat him.

Check here for your local listings.

Roger Ailes

Just remember. When you read all the Bushlicking bloggers piss and moan about the New London decision -- They're all frauds.

In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston Chronicle, "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it." But Bush would have never gotten the stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit suggests that the Rangers' owners -- remember that Bush was the managing general partner -- were conspiring to use the city's condemnation powers to obtain the thirteen-acre tract a full six months before the ASFDA was even created.

In an October 26, 1990, memo from Mike Reilly (an Arlington real estate broker and part owner of the Rangers), to Tom Schieffer, Reilly says of the Mathes property, "... in this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer.... If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."

The Mathes memo reveals a sharp contrast between Bush's public pronouncements in defense of property rights and his private profiteering. While running against Ann Richards, Bush said, "I understand full well the value of private property and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state." Roger Ailes

Just remember. When you read all the Bushlicking bloggers piss and moan about the New London decision -- They're all frauds.

In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston Chronicle, "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it." But Bush would have never gotten the stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit suggests that the Rangers' owners -- remember that Bush was the managing general partner -- were conspiring to use the city's condemnation powers to obtain the thirteen-acre tract a full six months before the ASFDA was even created.

In an October 26, 1990, memo from Mike Reilly (an Arlington real estate broker and part owner of the Rangers), to Tom Schieffer, Reilly says of the Mathes property, "... in this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer.... If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."

The Mathes memo reveals a sharp contrast between Bush's public pronouncements in defense of property rights and his private profiteering. While running against Ann Richards, Bush said, "I understand full well the value of private property and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state."
Yet Bush and his partners used Arlington's powers to condemn the land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold to build the Ballpark -- receiving what amounts to a direct $135-million subsidy. Now, after tripling the amount they paid for the Rangers, Bush and his partners won't re-pay the city a measly $7.5 million.

(More here) 

Frontline: Private Warriors       rear window ethics

I got around to watching the most recent Frontline, entitled Private Warriors. In it, a Frontline reporting team follows private contractors in Iraq, both specializing in industry/infrastructure as well as private security. The level to which we depend on these private companies, their supply lines and their security teams is simply staggering, and the lack of transparency and accountability in their mission is deeply disturbing.

Watch the program now, online, here.

Yet Bush and his partners used Arlington's powers to condemn the land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold to build the Ballpark -- receiving what amounts to a direct $135-million subsidy. Now, after tripling the amount they paid for the Rangers, Bush and his partners won't re-pay the city a measly $7.5 million.
(More here)

rear window ethics

I got around to watching the most recent Frontline, entitled Private Warriors. In it, a Frontline reporting team follows private contractors in Iraq, both specializing in industry/infrastructure as well as private security. The level to which we depend on these private companies, their supply lines and their security teams is simply staggering, and the lack of transparency and accountability in their mission is deeply disturbing.

Watch the program now, online, here.

Frontline gets it right with an incredible documentary called "Rumsfeld's War"

It goes in depth about the ideology that makes up the neoconservative movement, the take over of the military by Rumsfeld and his mis-management of the Iraq war. Anyone voting on tuesday should see this program in it's entirety.

Watch here

There is a sync problem between the audio and the video so just listen!