They should start with their own reporting.
Quote:
The best health care in the world? McCain has asserted that before and so have other politicians. No doubt we will hear it again. But the evidence says otherwise. The Commonwealth Fund, which each year compares the U.S. system to those of other countries, has found serious shortcomings in the American way of health care.
Ummm... No Judy, the Commonwealth Fund doesn't compare the U.S. System to those of other countries. What it DOES do is compare the results of SURVEYS of patient's and doctor's PERCEPTIONS of those healthcare systems. There is no objective standard used in the study for the comparison. There is no control that ensures that when a Germen says their care was "good" it means the same thing as when an American (or Canadian or Brit...) says their care was "good".
And if Judy is concerned with accuracy then she should have also disclosed that the Commonwealth Fund has never seen a Universial Healthcare program it didn't like and their report was heavily weighted based on their preference.
That doesn't make McCain's statement accurate but it does provide some "analysis" when reporters are saying someone's statements are wrong.
Quote:Journalists must also repeat, therefore. We must add history, context, and analysis, and when something is flat-out wrong, we should say so. The topic of American health care quality is a good place to start. And to repeat.
Of course, those same journalists should also be looking from an objective position when they are doing all of this too, right Judy? Is there a reason you forgot to mention that part (along with forgetting to actually do that analysis you speak of)??
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace