http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/media_playing_up_rulings_again.htmlMedia playing up rulings against health reform?
By Greg Sargent
Steve Benen takes a look at some of the media coverage of the four key rulings on the Affordable Care Act, and
finds that the two rulings pronouncing the law unconstitutional received far more attention than the two upholding it.Click through to Steve's post for the details, but the short version is that the
discrepancy in coverage by the media outlets he looked at is overwhelming.On one level, this is understandable. A decision reversing the law seems, on its face, to be more newsworthy than a decision upholding it, since a reversal of the law -- unlike an affirmation of it -- potentially changes things in a big way.
But as Steve notes, it's unclear whether either set of rulings has any more real-world significance than the other, since the fate of the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. And
the truth is that the public is being left with a lopsided view of the judiciary's read on the law.You could argue that if the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of the law in any case, it doesn't matter much if the public has a distorted picture of its legal predicament. But of course this does matter, because it's unfolding in a political context.
If people have an exaggerated sense of the law's alleged unconstitutionality, it could contribute to the law's unpopularity, which could in turn make the push for partial repeal or defunding of the law easier. That in turn could make it more likely that the law's implementation could grow more chaotic. That could impact real people, and it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that it could impact the law's fate before the highest court.
Again, it's not hard to see why decisions against the Affordable Care Act are deemed more newsworthy. But it's still unfortunate that the public is being left with a highly-distorted impression of what's happening.