So Explain This: FoxNews.com vs. CNN.com – Do We Read What We Want To Hear?

Posted by J. Alexander Mitchell on 07.15.2009

Can we trust ANY one news source?

CNN.com has an article – posted under Politics, but not as a front page headline – discussing the new House Democrat's health care reform plan. It is titled "House Democrats Unveil Health Care Reform Plan". FoxNews has a similar article on the newest plan, which is instead highlighted as a headline on the main page. The label given to the FoxNews article is "$1 Trillion – Or More?"

Perhaps I am mistaken, but there is just a slight difference in tone here. Is it even possible to get the complete story on anything from one source anymore?

The FoxNews article begins with the following (with verbiage discussing the Senate bill deleted):

The comprehensive health care overhaul being pitched by House Democrats could lead to a cost explosion in the long-term, a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office suggests… That's just the first hurdle for one of several bills, each with fluctuating cost estimates. For the House Democrats' version, the CBO estimate tagged the 10-year cost of the plan at just over $1 trillion.

The CNN article begins with the following:

House Democrats unveiled their revised version of health care reform Tuesday, offering a proposal that includes a government-funded health insurance option, requires both individuals and employers to participate, and taxes the wealthy to help cover costs.

Democratic House leaders said the measure, titled "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," met the requirements set by President Obama for health care reform by lowering costs to consumers and businesses, letting people keep their current plan if desired, and preventing denial of coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions.

So, on the one hand, we get "This is going to cost more money than God has". On the other hand, we get "This is going to help people out while giving options". The tone of both articles sets the stage for the articles - it becomes obvious immediately that the FoxNews article will slam the costs of the bill, where the CNN one will highlight the great parts of the bill.

These are simply opening statements – let's look at how each responds to the points brought up by the other.
The CNN article does mention the costs of the House Democrat plan:

The Congressional Budget Office said the revised house bill also would cost $1 trillion. However, a senior Democratic House committee staffer said the CBO analysis only covered costs without factoring in cost-saving measures worth $500 billion over 10 years or the revenue from tax surcharges on wealthy Americans, estimated to raise more than $500 billion over a decade.

This sounds fairly reasonable, and is nowhere to be found in the FoxNews article. The FoxNews article does go into further detail about the costs:

One Democratic aide said the bill would add up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But the CBO estimate showed that even if the price tag holds to $1 trillion, more than 80 percent of the costs will hit in the last five years. This indicates that after 2019, taxpayers could be hit with a rising tidal wave of health care expenses resulting from the shift in health care coverage from the private to public sector.

The higher estimates are nowhere to be found in the CNN article.

As an aside, I am bothered by the line "taxpayers could be hit with a rising tidal wave of health care expenses resulting from the shift in health care coverage from the private to public sector". I interpret that to mean "All of those people that couldn't get coverage or couldn't afford the things they needed will now get them, and that will cause costs to skyrocket". Isn't that the point – to get that either don't have it or don't have enough the coverage that they need?

Let's analyze the bonuses mentioned in the CNN article – lower costs, preventing denial due to preexisting conditions, and the like. The closest thing I could find in the FoxNews article was the following:

Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. The CBO estimated that the plan would reduce the number of "nonelderly" uninsured by 37 million over 10 years.

This doesn't sound quite as rosy. Of course, if I wanted "rosy", I could look at the list of provisions in the CNN article:

Specific provisions of the bill include:
-- A Health Insurance Exchange providing individuals and small business with choices for coverage, including a government-funded public option.
-- No more coverage exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
-- Affordability credits for low- and moderate-income individuals and families, available to those with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $43,000 for individuals and $88,000 for a family of four.
-- Limits on annual out-of-pocket spending.
-- Expanded Medicaid coverage to individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
-- Required participation by individuals, with a penalty of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income for non-compliance.
-- Requirement that businesses with payrolls exceeding $250,000 provide their employees with health coverage or contribute up to 8 percent of their payroll on their behalf.
-- A series of measures intended to reduce costs of Medicaid, Medicare and other existing systems.

Of this list, the FoxNews article does mention the affordability credits and the 2.5% penalty, with the additional detail that the 2.5% penalty is limited as "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan".

Of course, we know this is going to cost money, right? CNN's description of the taxes needed to cover this legislation:

The bill includes tax surcharges on Americans in the top 1.2 percent of income. It proposes a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning more than $1 million, a 1.5 percent surtax on couples with income between $500,000 and $1 million, and a 1 percent surtax on joint incomes over $350,000 or individual income over $280,000..

FoxNews' description:

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

In one case, the articles directly contradict each other. From FoxNews:

"This bill has massive spending and massive tax increases to try to cover the spending in the bill," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said at a press conference with other congressional Republicans Tuesday, complaining about a provision in the House bill to tax the wealthy. "Half of that will be hit on small businesses."

From CNN.com:

Anticipating Republican complaints that the tax surcharges would harm small business owners who report their income as personal, Democratic sponsors said the measure would affect less than 5 percent of all small business owners.

Is it 50% or 5%?

I expect a certain level of bias in any writing – as long as the writer is a human, some of his or her thoughts will creep in. However, this is far too much effort to have to put in to get the complete picture on what should be a straightforward news piece telling us what is in the House Democrat bill. For example, why does the CNN article not mention the potential $1.5 trillion estimate? Why does the CNN article not mention the cap on the penalty for declining the option?

My question becomes this – how can anyone get anything out of any one news source? On a typical day, I check out some combination of CNN.com, FoxNews.com, MSNBC.com, and DallasNews.com (as well as a few other Dallas specific sites like Dallas Progress – cheap plug and thumbs up!), and the situation I had today feels typical – I have to read multiple articles from reputable sources to get a complete picture of a story. Is it any wonder why we have so many philosophical differences if there are such huge disparities in the information we receive? What can one do to find the "real news"?

Other quick hits:

In the blog entry titled , I wrote: I believe that Judge Sotomayor could have, to say the least, worded what she said differently; I question whether a "wise" Latina would have chosen that phrasing When asked about the comment during her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor said "I was trying to play on her words," she said. "My play fell flat. It was bad." That sounds suspiciously like what I said. Quoth Mr. Helms… "I'm just sayin'".

The Free Republic is a solidly respectable conservative grassroots website which I have in the past used to get a better understanding of some conservative outlooks. One can imagine my surprise when the Vancouver Sun reported that it included a number of racial slurs directed at President Obama's children after his oldest was photographed wearing a shirt with a peace sign on it while the presidential family was in Europe. Under regular conditions I would give this an entire article, but I am trying to avoid being "that race guy" so I'll let this one fly as a quick hit. Among some of the things said about Malia – who was wearing nothing more provocative, literally, than a shirt with a peace symbol – was: "A typical street whore." "A bunch of ghetto thugs." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion." The article was removed only after pressure from a number of other sources (though not before posting the original complainers e-mail address publicly). A screenshot of the thread can be found right here. This is definitely not a good look for Free Republic.