Do you think people are so angry, so fed up with the current medical system, that they are ready to go in the opposite direction, towards universal health care?I would expect this kind of demagoguery from a political candidate, but not a reputable talk show host on public radio. I'm most concerned because no one seems to recognize this type of deception.
These are words from a soothing, innocent, academic, inquisitive female voice; seemingly a champion of truth. Then, she casually asks whether universal health care, the opposite of what people are fed up with, is the answer...I don't care if universal health coverage is the answer or not - this is how tyrants get elected to office, and doesn't belong on public radio.
Is our public education system preparing children's brains for this type of treatment? Are public schools really teaching their students the skills necessary to identify rhetoric and demagogy? Or are teachers afraid of handing students that power? I fear our country is not prepared for this. Public figures know this, and they are using it to advance their agendas.
Who is watching the watchmen?
4 comments:
Ha. This post confuses me. Maybe I am reading your quote incorrectly or maybe it’s different when you hear the words come from a women’s mouth, but I’m unclear as to how you feel she was perpetuating or playing on emotions/prejudices?
Is it that she said universal health care is the opposite of what we currently have? Or because she said people are fed up with the current system, and you don’t believe that to be true? I would venture to guess that it is some combo of both that bothers you? That you think she shouldn’t perpetuate the idea that people are fed up and that universal health care is THE opposite direction in which people will move? Or am I way off?
When I read her statement/question, I took it as a bit of an assault on universal healthcare. Yes, it sounds to me like she is saying people are willing to move in that direction just because they don’t like the current system – without any real knowledge of what that would mean. Ok, so that’s not really what I thought. I’m just trying to illustrate a greater point.
I don’t believe that her question was loaded like you do. But we all interpret things differently based on our experiences and beliefs. Same is true in how we speak. So maybe she was perpetuating something but most likely it was shaped by her experience and not a way of exerting power. We are all just people after all. And if you believe in the overall goodness of the human race, then how can you think that the majority of the media, Kerri Miller, or even politicians, are actually attempting to use their power in the way you suggest?
Yes, there are demagogues out there, but that’s why we are lucky to live here where there is always shifting as things try to find balance. After all, you can turn on the radio and listen to Kerri Miller or Limbaugh or just some rockin’ tunes.
On the other hand, I do agree that we as a country don’t question what we are told nearly enough. I think this is a product of the “good life.” It starts at home and continues into the classroom. Far too many of us are complacent until things really impact us personally.
Ok, sorry to invade your blog and blab on and on. (feel free to erase this)
Just one final thought. Look at Stewart and Colbert, the people of MN who elected Ventura (ok, not the best example), Independent voters, TimesWatch.org, Counterbias.com, and the hoards of bloggers out there just like you... you are watching watchmen!
So pleased to see a real comment! Someone's watching the watcher of the watchmen. And, yes, this does need clarification.
Okay, it's like saying, regarding transportation: "Do you think people are so angry, so fed up with bicycles, that they are ready to go in the opposite direction, towards dirigibles?"
In other words, was her language carefully crafted to quietly imply superiority of one position over another? (in my example: dirigibles over cruise ships; rollerblades) I think it was.
"opposite direction..." This implies that the current health care system is headed in the opposite direction of universal coverage, which it really isn't. Medicare and the prescription drug plan are both examples of plans headed in the same direction as universal coverage.
"towards universal health care..." Is universal coverage really the undisputed solution to the system's problems?
Her words make answering the question more difficult for the individual who believes universal coverage would be a government/corporate monopoly on heath care, and therefore exasperate our current problems.
This is a very tough issue, and I don't know who has the answers, but a journalist quickly loses credibility when their personal opinions come through like this - intentional or not.
Why not simply ask: "Do you think there is an outcry for universal health care?" or "Do you think people are so fed up with the current system that they demand change? Do you think they believe universal health care is the solution?" These are totally fine.
To me, the precise language she chose implies superiority of universal coverage, while leaving room for ambiguity. And she asked the same question more then once, verbatim. I'm glad this isn't everyone's interpretation, but I've recently seen so much deceptive political speech maybe I'm hyper-sensitive to anything that resembles it.
Oh man. Lots-o-stuff to respond to here :) Okay, I do believe in the overall goodness of the human race, but I also fear the destination of the road paved with good intentions. In other words - we are really only as good as we are well informed. But there are also influences of money and power which possess people to say just about anything - a sociopathic influence untethered to good intentions or results. But, I don't believe that's Kerri's influence.
I believe Kerri's intentions are good and from the heart - and an enlightened (although overconfident) mind. They are generally dedicated to revealing the truth - a warrior against ignorance. This is why even a small biased slant can devalue the otherwise correct and objective facts we are all looking for. Using any of the tactics of the enemy (e.g. O'Reilly) to quell thought, pacify, and reinforce the status quo rather than incite thought is not acceptable for someone in her position (IHMO). Although it looks like, in the end, she won after all this time.
I mean...after all (this time).
I do understand your perspective and you make a very good argument. She could have easily phrased the question differently. I believe that if she just eliminated the word opposite she would have been asking the question that she wanted to ask, which is whether people are looking at universal health care as "the solution" because they are so fed up with the way the system currently is. That seems like a fair question to me, considering the current emphasis on universal health care in election politics.
But I digress, we could go on and on, back and forth. Just as you may be hyper-sensitive to some political speak, I happen to be a tad hyper-sensitive to those who are hyper-sensitive. lol.
I look forward to further enlightening discussions!
Post a Comment