Stumbling On Astroturf

(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Here at Public Eye, we've gotten more than 400 emails complaining about Jeff Greenfield's Friday piece on the film "Sicko." Why so many? Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Common Dreams, and Reclaim The Media have all posted FAIR's "Action Alert" complaining about the piece.

The action alert ends by telling readers to "Tell CBS Evening News to correct Jeff Greenfield's assertions about public opinion and single-payer health coverage. You could also point out that Dennis Kucinich—a proponent of such a system—is in fact a presidential candidate." It includes our email address as well as that of the "Evening News."

Almost immediately after the FAIR alert was posted, I contacted Greenfield for his thoughts. He quickly responded to FAIR's critique. I posted the critique and Greenfield's response yesterday at 5:00 PM with hopes that it would start the kind of dialogue in our comments section that Public Eye was created to foster.

The results have been disappointing. The Greenfield post has elicted just seven comments thus far, a drop in the bucket when compared to the number of complaints we've gotten about this issue in our now bulging inbox. Most of the e-mailers have clearly not seen or considered Greenfield's comments, opting instead to simply parrot the line of the FAIR piece. Some just pasted the FAIR piece into the body of their email.

I'm not taking sides here. I am, however, pointing out that an awful lot of people seem more interested in registering their outrage when directed to do so than in engaging in a discussion of the issues at hand.

I sent Greenfield's comments to FAIR's Peter Hart, as well as to FAIR's general inbox, immediately after I posted them. As of this writing, they have not been posted on FAIR's Web site.

If people are really interested in improving the mainstream media, the first step is to engage it – and folks like Greenfield, as well as institutions like Public Eye, have made that easier to do than ever. But most of those who have contacted us have neglected to take that step – and FAIR has not pointed them towards the opportunity.

I can see the appeal of sending an outraged email when told to do so: It makes you feel like an engaged citizen who is doing something to make things right. But making a difference sometimes takes more than a point and a click.

[mattcat25]

I guess the debate ball has started to roll on this subject, and that was the complete idea of Michael Moore%u2019s film. I haven%u2019t seen the film so I can%u2019t comment, nor am I familiar with any pending house bills. But, you can lay a wager on that the Republican Party will dig in, struggle, create false claims, and attack the left (like move on.org/Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan) as being too left and they will continue to act as an obstruction with no solutions for any positive results to the American People.

Just like with Iraq, Energy, our Environment, and Immigration.

[pcunni61]

O boo hoo.

We ARE engaging the media, hence Greenfield's unapologetic response. I love the "blame the victim" mentality (the public being the victim of misleading information) and your statement, "the results have been disappointing," regarding the relative few responses to Greenfield. We are just so disappointing!

You miss the point entirely and let your defensiveness get in the way of a correction.

The main element of HR 676 and Moore's vision is that the role of the insurance industry is completely eliminated from the health equation.

The two ideas are very close and to say otherwise is simply misleading. Ask Michael Moore; he was in DC last week advocating on behalf of HR767, the Conyers/Kucinich bill.

And by the way, Dennis has been pushing for single-payer since the 2000 Democratic platfrom commitee.

Just get it straight.

[smujismuj]

I think it was senator imhoff [inhoff?] that said his response to form letters urged by organizations like moveon.org is to throw them in the trash.

I doubt either of the commercial parties [dem/rep] pay much if any attention to mass mailings nowadays.

They take their orders from wall street...whatever's good for the stock market is good for america.

That is greenfield's general order as well, whether he's doing it for the dow or for his own distorted notions of the benefits of capitalism.

Capitalism is a dead end...a runaway train, gaining speed.

The planet is doomed, thanks to apologists like jeff.

[bennyblack1]

I certainly agree that people should be well informed of the issues before they engage in posting a blog. All too often, however, a common mistake people make is they have their opinion, and they don't want to hear any others. I believe that this should be a forum that should first and foremost inform, then provide an avenue for response, then eventually discussion. I also know, though, that people are busy. So, they post a comment, then have to go do something else. I will tell you one thing, though. I have written congress, those in my district and those who are not in my district and can tell you that they are NOT listening. I've gotten letters back that thanked me for my support on an issue when I made it clear that I wasn't in support of is. Sheer frustration comes from trying to do the right thing, then using an alternative source that WILL follow up, and do the right thing to find the truth. So, sorry guys. You're good people that have to force people to do their jobs, and it's not fair.

[mojeffcoop894]

I'd hoped Jeff Greenfield would take it off auto-pilot once he'd left CNN and gone to CBS. Sadly, that clearly hasn't been the case.

Even allowing for CBS News's need to provide sizzle in an effort boost ratings and understanding the medium's shortcomings when it comes to furnishing in-depth info and context, Greenfield has clearly sipped into the David Broder Zone, where uttering the most banal nonsense consistently based on nothing but half-truths and complete horsebrithume passes for sage advice.

It's not. It's ***. If Greenfield remains content to stay in the Broder Zone, muster up the occasional simplistic nonsense piece under the pretense of wise counsel and sage advice for a check, that's between him and the CBS Brass.

Just don't pretend it's anything more than it is.

Merely tossing up the standard Socialized Medicine "horror stories" the Frist family business eagerly supplies him may constitute a convincing argument for better administration than Britain, Canada or the other Countries invariably cited provide.

That doesn't make it a convincing argument for maintaining the status quo.

It's not. To pretend that it is is complete horsebrit. It doesn't make it legitimate just because it comes out of Greenfield's mouth. It's still horsebrit.

Jeff Cooper
Montpelier, VT

[ronmwanga]

The strategy of sheer numbers is tired. If they won't make use of the opportunity to engage in a meaningful way Public Eye, and, by proxy, CBS News, then you should regard one-time expressions of parroted rage as argumnets void on arrival. Responding to the sheer volume of their responses rewards their cheap tactics. A single heartfelt and reasoned argument is worth 700 emails from dutiful but unquestioning soldiers in the culture wars. Maybe responding only to emails that suggest a true engagement with the issue will hasten a reciprocal argument equal to the efforts Greenfield has put forth. And that's what we all -- readers and PE staff -- want really.

[memekiller]

I have to agree with this, actually. After unthinkingly doing my usual post, after thinking better of it, I added an addendum because after reading FAIR's critique, I was delighted to see that Greenfield was not doing the usual holier-than thou denouncement of the partisanship the mainstream media helped foster by ignoring it when it was one-sided.

After reading Greenfield's response, I found this criticism overblown. What usually gets my dander up is playing dumb or intentionally misrepresenting reality to arrive at the preferred storyline. I don't see any evidence of that here.

However, I've looked at the polls, and Americans do very much want health care reform, and they want the government involved. Only when you phrase it as "government run" or some such do you get the public against it. I think the media tends to underplay how popular universal health care is. But they don't want socialism.