On today’s Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC host Ratigan and guest Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempted to debate whether or not the recent changes in the healthcare reform bill were a cop-out by legislators to the benefit of private insurance companies. Ratigan used the recent upsurge in stock values of America’s top insurance companies as a clear indicator that the recent changes would mean a big boon for that industry.
Schultz attempts to defend the altered bill by defending the overall changes that would result, but Ratigan will have nothing of it as he yells over her and demands she respond to the upsurge in stock values and nothing else. Schultz replies that she is not a stock analyst and that if he wanted to talk about what fluctuations in the stock market and how to interpret their meaning he should ask an analyst on the show and not a congresswoman. Ratigan tosses his hands up declaring “This is over.”
Here’s the interview video:
This is a perfect example of a new style of television journalism that has gained in popularity over the last decade. It essentially validates volume and inconsiderate assertiveness as legitimate tools for debating. The genesis of what I like to call “bombasting” originated with the multiple “Hollywood Squares-style” talking heads shows that would feature multiple experts at the same time and the person who was the loudest and rudest got to speak the most.
Bombasting has evolved and devolved over time with mostly negative results but with a few highlights along the way. My favorite of these “highlights” was Chris Matthews, who took this style of journalism to its pinnacle back during the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. “Volume and inconsiderate assertiveness” can be productive and sometimes necessary when dealing with a panel of smug partisan politicians who seem desperate for everyone to listen to their broken records. Matthews exercised great judgment on when to cut someone off or interject, often preventing his viewers from having to listen to more of the same mumbo jumbo BS (Thanks Chris!), and he seemed to do it under the guise of getting at the truth instead of a preset agenda.
That being said, Ratigan came across as a complete idiot in this interview. Even if it did appear Schultz was sort of dodging the specific question a bit, there was no need to cut her off and insult her like he did. She seemed to be there in good faith and though she obviously had her own agenda, she seemed willing to have an intellectual discussion about the matter. And besides, she was right in saying that stock prices, even if they are industry-wide, could be affected by any number of variables. Stats can be made to say anything. I just picked one of the insurance stocks he quoted (Aetna) and looked at it’s price over the last nine months and since February 6, 2009 it has dropped around 6%. Does that mean the attempt to reform healthcare has had an overall negative effect on big Insurance companies? Blah, blah, blah.
Between relying almost completely on Facebook comments and tweets (CNN), biasly obsessing over biases (Fox News), making fun of short video clips (Jon Stewart) and trying to make a point through sheer volume (MSNBC and everyone else) – not to mention the hours and hours of news channel programming dedicated to a specific kidnapping or missing person – the pool of tolerable news sources is dwindling down to nothing. I can’t help but hope that there’s a young Ted Turner out there thinking to himself, “You know what would be a good idea? A 24-hour news network!”
