Hillary Clinton’s going to announce the details of her new health care plan on Monday, Sep 17. Even though the articles discussing the Clinton’s plan don’t go into details, one thing is sure: Clinton wants to make health care available for everyone.
The author of a news article on NYT.com tries to stay objective and not criticize Clinton’s plan. The author only reminds the readers of the Clintons’ attempt in 1993-94 to reform health care.
Another article in The Washington Post quotes Mitt Romney, who is, of course, not praising Hillary and her plan.
Other articles only mention Hillary in connection with other candidates’ positions on health care and insurance system. But one thing is common: somehow the fact that Hillary Clinton’s attempts failed back in 1993-94 seems to show up in every article.
I think this is far from objectivity. I mean, people are waiting for Clinton’s proposal on how to make health care better, but before knowing what she wants, the media kind of hits it down by saying, “Yeah, health coverage for everyone sounds good, but do you guys remember her plan 15 years ago? She must have the same concept this time as back then.”
Okay, I’m saying this as an outsider. I have no idea if her plans are good or not. The journalists being skeptical about her plan might be right, and this case they absolutely fulfill the media’s watchdog role. The point I want to make is simply that objectivity is not always good, and it doesn’t really exist in the form read about it in textbooks.
Maybe the articles mean to be objective by not only praising Clinton but to show her failed attempts, too. But this is not objectivity! This is only showing both sides. (Even though, in The Washington Post article reporting only on what Romney had to say I don’t see both sides.)
I think there’s difference between being objective and fair. Objectivity can give opportunity for some hidden sarcasm. Fairness is more about presenting the truth and the entire story in a way that the reader can choose what to think.
After reading the articles on Clinton’s upcoming announcement regarding a new health system, I’m already biased against it. If the articles didn’t mention her earlier failed attempt, I would have a better opinion about her. And the worst thing is, I don’t even know what her plans are she’s about to announce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment