Only Headlines Matter: What more need I say?

Derogatory: “tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing.”

Author's Note
Two quick points before we jump in. First, I realize that journalists don't often write their own headlines. However, it is the practice of the AP to post articles with a headline that guides the newspapers in selecting their own. Often media outlets will revise or re-write a headline as is their prerogative. This explains why sometimes it appears that numerous articles covering the same topic have hit the wire at the same time, when in fact it's just the same piece picked-up by multiple publications. In fact, this very article ran as Some conservatives question Romney's health care plan (Boston Globe), A year later, some conservatives question Romney's health care plan (San Diego Union Tribune), Romney Plays Down Health Care Plan (ABC News), and on it goes. For another extreme example of this phenomenon see the headlines related to Romney's 2nd Amendment coverage below.

Second, the point of this piece was not to refute the idea that Romney is backing away from his health care accomplishments in Massachusetts as the author of this article claims. For all I know, Mitt could be distancing himself from the issue. The point here is that we rely on reporters to present facts and evidence that accurately portray the situation to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, in this environment of 24/7 cycles and pressure to crank out line after line of "news," we the consumer rarely get well researched or highly credible coverage. Instead, we get reporters riffing on a hunch and throwing together disparate facts to try and fool the public into thinking that they are just presenting unassailable common knowledge without much need to back it up. I realize much of my writing is satirical, but I hope it helps expose just another example of a shoddy article based purely on the author's assumption, not the facts presented in the piece.

In addition to this article I could have chosen “Romney Plays Down Role in Health Law, Massachusetts Legislation Is Widely Lauded, but Not by Conservative Republicans by Perry Bacon Jr. of the Washington Post which was based on the same topic. It presented a few extra facts, but was still seriously lacking.

Overview
Are you as tired as I am of the misleading, unsupported, and downright derogatory headlines that seem to define much of the coverage of the Romney campaign? As most media outlets know, it’s the headline, not the meat of an article, that will have the most impact these days. In a world of news overload most Americans don’t have the time or inclination to check into the facts that may or may not support a headline. A recent example would be this gem from the AP:

HEADLINE: Romney Plays Down Health Care Plan

Supporting evidence presented in the article:
referring to the fact that during an eight minute speech at CPAC Romney didn't happen to mention health care.

Opposing evidence presented in the article:
reference to statements made at multiple "campaign stops" in which Romney did mention health care and a recent conversation that Romney had with reporters in which he did proudly defend his plan and propose that it be extended nationally:

"The insurance mandate, the former governor says, is a means of ensuring 'personal responsibility,' such as a state requirement for drivers to carry auto insurance.

'Overall, it's an advance,' Romney said of the plan while speaking with reporters in Chicago on Thursday. 'We need to get everybody in the system. You can't have 45 million Americans who are showing up at hospitals without insurance and expecting somebody else to pay for them.'"

Conclusion based on the evidence presented in the article:
sounds like Romney is not playing down health care, but to the contrary is using it to prove his conservative credentials and citing it as an example of his innovative thinking.

Accurate headline based on the evidence presented in the article:
After ground-breaking bi-partisan success as Governor on health care reform, Romney looks to innovate at national level

SUBHEAD: A Year Later, Some Conservatives Question Romney's Health Care Plan

Supporting evidence presented in the article:
a single opinion from "Michael Tanner, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think-tank."

Opposing evidence presented in the article:
an admission that multiple "conservative groups" such as the Heritage Foundation have embraced the plan; further evidenced by a recent memo supporting the initiative "by Robert E. Moffit, the director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies."

Conclusion based on the evidence presented in the article:
sounds like multiple conservatives groups do not question the plan, in fact they support it, while a single libertarian does not.

Accurate subhead based on the evidence presented in the article:
Conservatives actively support Romney's health care plan

Analysis
Now "Romney Plays Down Health Care Plan" is quite a statement considering that Mitt’s health care plan was one of his great accomplishments as governor. So naturally I, like most Romney supporters, was eager to read this “news”. It turns out that the piece provides nothing more than vague conjecture as evidence. Here's how it works according to Glen Johnson of the AP: if a candidate doesn’t mention a topic at a campaign stop then by all sound logic and journalistic common knowledge they must be playing down the issue. Here’s the only two sentences from the article that even try to back up the bold statement made in the headline:

"Mitt Romney, who a year ago was heralding Massachusetts' health insurance law,
sometimes fails to mention the far-reaching program when addressing conservative audiences today."

Recall that a year ago Mr. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts and it was kind of his job to "herald" a program that he was sponsoring. Hence, it shouldn't be surprising that one heard more about this topic from Mr. Romney back then.

"Nonetheless, Romney did not mention what he described as "one of our great accomplishments" during a wide-ranging February speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington."

Realize that this "wide-ranging speech" lasted around 8 minutes and focused on three topics of general interest to the CPAC-- a fairly specialized audience wouldn't you agree! However, a much more honest assessment of Romney's willingness to campaign on health care can be taken from his own presidential candidacy announcement just two months ago. In it he said:

"for some, healthcare is inadequate..." and "How is the American family made stronger... With healthcare that is affordable and portable."

Doesn't exactly sound like he's running from the issue here does it. In fact, a quick visit to Romney's web site includes an entire section under "Issue Watch" on health care (by the way health care is totally absent from the issues section of both Giuliani and McCain's web sites - but I digress.)

So to sum things up: Stop the presses! the Associated Press has uncovered a major bit of news here folk! Romney didn't mention the Massachusetts health care plan in a single speech – a move that by all rights is tantamount to turning tail and running like a whipped dog from the issue.

After this stunning revelation we are treated to two guesses as to why Romney insists on omitting this essential information from his repertoire. One of these reasons is that “conservatives” have criticized his plan. And who pray tell are these legions of red-dog republicans lambasting the Governor? Why it's none other than the preeminent conservative Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a "libertarian think-tank"! That's right, Michael Tanner Who? Although in all fairness the article does mention that Romney believes that he and Tanner don’t see “eye to eye” on the plan. In other words, we're treated to Romney's defense of the supposedly unmentionable plan that he's trying to distance himself from like radioactive plutonium. Oh, but it gets better.

To further prove his point, Glen Johnson quotes Romney talking about the plan at recent campaign stops and cites a statement made to the press about the plan last Thursday. Wait a minute folks, how can the author say that Romney “fails to mention the far-reaching program” and then provide us with a few examples of how Romney is talking about the very program?

How do they get away with this stuff? Do they really think we’re such dolts that they can throw out any derogatory headline and nobody will bother to read on and find out if it’s actually backed up by information in the article? Did it ever occur to the reporter to ask Mr. Romney the question, “Are you backing away from your health care plan” or actually research the issue beyond some preliminary guesswork? As usual there's no new information here - just some journalistic ruminations and easily refuted examples of how Mitt is supposedly caught in another non-existent bind.

Postscript
For a better understanding of Glen Johnson’s opinion of the Governor take a look at these tidbits from his most recent articles on Mitt Romney:

Romney tops Republicans in fundraising
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/2/07)

“Romney's total included an unexpected asterisk: a $2.35 million loan from the candidate himself. In January, the Republican stunned the field by raising $6.5 million on a single day in which he invited his supporters to Boston and asked them to call their professional and social circles for donations.

At that time, the millionaire venture capitalist said "it would be akin to a nightmare" if he donated to his campaign, although he reserved that right. On Monday, a senior adviser said Romney ended up loaning the funds as "seed money" for his campaign. The adviser said Romney had done so before making his 'nightmare' comment.”

Nice piece of misinformation provided out of context and aimed at confusing readers into believing that Mr. Romney had to engage in his own “nightmare” scenario and loaned his campaign money. I had to read the paragraphs a few time to try and figure out why Glen would even bring the statement up. The only conclusion that I can come to is that Glen is trying to conflate the nightmare statement with Romney’s prior seed money somehow – but you decide.

Romney says he seldom needed a license when he went hunting
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/7/07)
Romney clarifies reports on hunting
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/7/07)
Romney says he seldom needed a license when he went hunting
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/6/07)
Romney defends lack of hunting license
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/6/07)
Romney calls himself a longtime hunter
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/5/07)
Despite boasts, Romney has hunted on two occasions
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/4/07)
Romney, self-described lifelong hunter, has hunted twice
(By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer, 4/4/07)
Romney the hunter: a total of 2 trips
(By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer, 4/4/07)

And here’s just one excerpt to give you a flavor of the coverage on this preeminent issue of our time (i.e. one statement by Mitt Romney on hunting):

“Critics said it was the latest example of a White House aspirant willing to say anything to reach the Oval Office.”

And who are these honest “critics” that Mr. Johnson cites who have dispassionately evaluated Mr. Romney’s record on hunting? Why it’s none other than Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. Because when a journalist wants to get an objective quote on a candidate then they go to the opposing party’s national committee of course. This is sort of like asking Muqtada Al Sadr for a comment on the American’s efforts to rebuild Iraq.