Late night show host Jimmy Kimmel did a little social experiment where a “reporter” would ask people on the street how they felt about Obamacare premiums rising on average 25 percent. Except, instead of just asking what they thought, the reporter put a positive spin on the word “premium,” to make interviewees think it was a good thing.
Here’s how people responded:
With the way some of these people were talking about Obama, it’s evident that they were more than likely supporters and voters of his. And they didn’t seem to understand that rising insurance premiums is a bad thing.
And while it’s true that probably some of those who were interviewed didn’t fall for the ruse and were edited out, leaving only those who looked clueless – for entertainment purposes – it does demonstrate how people are led so easily astray by the media.
The media is more sneaky and underhanded than Jimmy Kimmel in the way they give viewers their opinion. But the concept is the same. The media frames the debate, and anytime they have “expert” guests on, they argue inside that narrative framework. They’ll even feature two opposing viewpoints to give the illusion that they’re considering “both sides” of the argument and will leave the viewer to “decide” which side is the correct one, when in reality, they’re still operating within the narrative that the media have constructed. The illusion of being “fair and balanced” is what reinforces in people’s minds that what they’re watching is objective reporting.
What viewers don’t understand is that their minds are being programmed. And this isn’t just a “liberal media” tactic. It’s all national media networks, and to a much lesser degree, local media.
To give one example, imagine a discussion on one of the big media networks about Obamacare and its rising premiums – the subject of the Jimmy Kimmel video above. They’ll have two or three guests to discuss solutions. One side will say that what needs to happen is for Obamacare to be repealed and replaced with something that actually works. The other side will say that Obamacare itself is mostly fine, and it just needs to be fixed. And maybe another side would chime in saying that there’s nothing wrong with Obamacare, it doesn’t need to be repealed and replaced, and it doesn’t need to be “fixed.” What we’re experiencing now with the rising premiums is simply a market correction. Eventually, premiums will go back down, and it things will be better than ever before.
So, there you’ve got three different opinions, and viewers will be left to decide which one is the valid solution.
If Ron Paul were still a Congressman, or if he were running for president, and he was in on this discussion, he would throw in an idea that was not inside their framework. He’d point out that the solution is not to “repeal and replace,” it’s not that Obamacare needs to be “fixed,” and it’s certainly not that we just need to wait it out. He’d point out the unconstitutionality of the law, and how the government needs to get out of the healthcare industry completely, as its involvement only drives costs up and quality down. Here’s what he’s actually said on the subject:
“Government has no legitimate authority to take money from taxpayers to fund health care or any other type of welfare program. Government-run health care also does not truly serve the interest of those supposedly ‘benefiting’ from the program. Anyone who doubts this should consider how declining reimbursements and increasing bureaucracy is causing more doctors to refuse to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.
“The problems plaguing the health care system are rooted in the treatment of health care as a ‘right.’ This justifies government intervention in the health care marketplace. This intervention causes increasing prices and declining quality and supply. Ironically, those who suffer most from government intervention are the very people proponents of these programs claim to want to help. The first step in restoring a health care system that meets the needs of all people is to start treating health care as a good that can and should only be provided via voluntary actions of free people.”
That would be a truly different perspective, but not one that was inside the media’s constructed framework. Their narrative presupposes the idea that the government needs to provide a solution and be involved somehow. Ron Paul’s – and many others’ – solution would be to get the government out of the way altogether. No wonder the media hated him. Thinking outside the media’s box is not allowed.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com