Just over a week after ABC News exploited a crying mother to push an expansion of federal health insurance “for kids,” a story which matched the media's overall emotion over facts reporting on the topic, on Monday's World News anchor Charles Gibson highlighted how “a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds opposition to more money for Iraq and support for more money for children's health insurance.” Citing a “guns versus butter debate,” Gibson noted how “fewer than three in ten Americans back the President's request for another $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while seven in ten Americans support the increased funding for children's health insurance that the President says he'll veto.”
The Tuesday Washington Post put the two findings at the top of a graphic to illustrate “Advantage Democrats?”
The September 20 NewsBusters item, “ABC Exploits Kids and Crying Mom to Push Higher Federal Health Spending,” recounted:
CBS, and especially ABC, on Thursday night portrayed the debate over increasing federal spending on health insurance for children as an effort to help kids only the cold-hearted could oppose, a framing aided by scenes of cute toddlers, a crying mother and little emphasis on how those well above poverty would qualify. ABC anchor Charles Gibson overlooked the proposed expansion, to those in families who have or can afford private insurance, as he cited "a bill providing health insurance to millions of kids whose parents cannot afford private coverage."
Reporter Martha Raddatz found a poor mother to exploit, beginning her story: "Susan Dick depends on the so-called SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance Program] program for her two sons, both of whom have asthma. The family income is too low for private insurance, too high for Medicaid." Raddatz briefly noted Bush's fear many would move from private insurance to the government program and then, leading into a soundbite from liberal Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, she hailed how "the expansion has bipartisan support across the country, including from many Republicans..." Capping her story, Raddatz featured a crying mother who sympathetically fretted: "If my boys don't have health insurance, it makes it very hard when you're a parent to know that they're sick and you have to get them to the doctor." Raddatz coldly concluded: "But the President made it very clear today, Charlie, he will veto this bill in its present form."
CBS anchor Katie Couric also painted Bush as opposed to helping kids: "President Bush opened a news conference today by attacking a proposed expansion of a health care program for low-income children."
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





Reporter Martha Raddatz found a poor mother to exploit, beginning her story: "Susan Dick depends on the so-called SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance Program] program for her two sons, both of whom have asthma. The family income is too low for private insurance, too high for Medicaid." Raddatz briefly noted Bush's fear many would move from private insurance to the government program and then, leading into a soundbite from liberal Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, she hailed how "the expansion has bipartisan support across the country, including from many Republicans..." Capping her story, Raddatz featured a crying mother who sympathetically fretted: "If my boys don't have health insurance, it makes it very hard when you're a parent to know that they're sick and you have to get them to the doctor." Raddatz coldly concluded: "But the President made it very clear today, Charlie, he will veto this bill in its present form." 















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Incomplete poll questions skew results
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 03:35 ET by nkviking75I wonder how much support there'd be for the "children's health care" if the poll question had included the fact that "children" up to age 25 are covered, that loopholes exist to provide healthcare to illegal aliens, and that eligibility for the program goes to twice the poverty level? If you check the poll, none of those relevant details are mentioned.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Twice the poverty level?
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 05:59 ET by motherbeltTwice the poverty level? How about four times?? It would cover families with incomes up to $82,0000.
and weren't they saying it would cost $20 billion a year? It hasn't even been voted on and it's up to $35 billion?
They never mention the details when they poll. They just want to be able to say people are in favor of this new entitlement.
and may I add: and
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 08:54 ET by oldArmyand may I add:
and against War spending. They do anything to get THAT result.
Worst bill ever
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 09:28 ET by general companyThis policy is just a step toward soicialized health care. Once this can is opened its effects will be reflected in employers health care policies, busting this budget almost immediately. Not to mention when the "kids" grow out of it, just imagine the "outrage" that the feds are cutting loose people whom need health care. This bill is a tragic idea, that will do nothing but harm our health care efforts
That 35 is just for one year right? $350 billion in ten
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 04:02 ET by Daniel BakerThe war is crazy expensive though. We should not be spending so much on rebuilding the countries there. Such big government waste George Bush style
_______________________________
Learn about "the best choice for people of faith" http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org
Free Beer Poll
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 07:04 ET by allanfRush Limbaugh is correct. Most Americans would favor "freee beer" also.
Christina Dunigan
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 07:40 ET by GrannyGrump42Defense money well spent is also spent on children. I know this firsthand. I teach English at a private academy in South Korea.
My students are healthy, happy, and thriving. Their biggest worries are homework and piano practice. They're not eating grass, like the kids on the other side of the DMZ, thanks to US and Korean soldiers, and thanks to a big fat juicy defense budget.
Excuse the hell out of me, lefties, but I think these kids are worth it. And I resent the idea that providing children with a free, prosperous world to be born into is a waste of money.
I've got a great idea for a
Tue, 10/02/2007 - 10:36 ET by BruzillaI've got a great idea for a story for Gibson: SCHIP Funding: Why do we need more when we aren't spending what we've got? Remember back to when Howard Dean was running in 2004, and bragging about how every child in Vermont was covered by medical insurance? He got the kids covered by covering the 5% or so of Vermont kids (all 3,000 of them) who weren't already covered by their parent's plans, and paying for their covereage with Vermont's part of the SCHIP money. He also got SCHIP money from PA and NY that wasn't getting spent. Most states don't use the SCHIP money that's already in the budget, so why do we need more?
A look at SCHIP money by state might be the answer. The highest SCHIP enrollments are in states with the highest illegal immigrant populations: California: 860,888, Texas: 293,342, Gerogia: 257,212, and Florida (known for it's senior population that doesn't have a lot of under-18 year olds): 193,639. After the high illegal populations states, guess which are the next highest? The Blue meccas of of Illinois: 151,253, Louisiana: 107,777, Maryland: 101,552, New Jersey: 127,525, New York: 388,689, Ohio: 142,374, and Pennsylvania: 143,501. Aside from North Carolina, 144,148, most all Red states have enrollment below 50,000, and many are below 20,000.
It's pretty obvious that the Dems are trying to buy votes in the illegal immigrant states and keep votes in the Blue states. I wonder why Gibson doesn't report that?