Last month, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the media on NBC New's "Meet the Press" that he would not do away with healthcare reform entirely, if he were to be elected into office. (1) Instead, he would plan to keep some of the most popular aspects of the president's healthcare law, including provisions for coverage for those Americans with pre-existing conditions.
This statement marks a slight change in Romney's stance on healthcare reform and was received with varied skepticism by the members of the media. The New York Times quoted Romney as saying, "“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform...Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” (2) The article put the facts out front and then made a point to highlight a hidden piece to Romney's plan: "Mr. Romney did not explain a significant feature of his proposal: he would explicitly guarantee insurance for people with existing conditions only if they have maintained coverage without a significant gap. That could exclude millions of Americans with medical problems like cancer, heart disease and asthma." By introducing this caveat to Romney's promise, the NYT opens up a door to further discussion of Romney's intentions and his overall agenda. However, the article does this in an effective, non-biased manner -- sourcing health experts from both Democrats and the Republican parties, as well as quoting a more neutral authority figure, health economist Joseph P. Newhouse, at Harvard.
An article in the Washington Post written by Eugene Robinson looked at Romney's NBC interview in a different light. (3) Titling the piece "Romney's health-care dither," the author immediately states that he is confused by Romney's statements over the weekend regarding his stance on President Obama's healthcare reform law. The article implies that Romney, himself, is confused on this point. "So Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Obamacare, or at least the consumer-friendly parts of Obamacare that Romney knows are popular," writes Robinson. He makes several glaring assumptions right off the bat, pointing out how he sees Romney contradicting himself and totally missing the boat. "To review, Romney was for Obamacare before he was against it before he was for it again..." Robinson mocks Romney for his indecisiveness and apparent lack of intelligence, reminding the reader that the element of Obamacare that Romney wants to get rid of (the individual mandate) is the very key to the problem of "so-called free riders" that Romney himself solved back when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Robinson's criticism of Romney leaves the reader with one side to the story. Robinson says, "My advice is that before making a serious attempt to understand what Romney might actually do, make sure your health-insurance policy covers whiplash."
Business Week reported on the same topic, choosing to highlight Romney's less partisan tone/approach to Obamacare. (4) By doing this, they presented the story with less bias, while still highlighting the differences between the two parties. However, similar to coverage by other news outlets, the article did not let Romney off the hook saying that Romney "has made opposition to the health care law a central theme of his campaign" and that he has been clear from the beginning that one of his first acts in office would be to repeal Obama Health Care Law. Without drawing too many conclusions in the article itself, Business Week presents that facts and lets the reader make a judgment. Of course, which facts they choose to present is subjective and can often lean in one direction or the other. Nevertheless, this publication effectively gives the reader a synopsis of the facts and trends in the current campaigns, in order to better inform their audience from an economic standpoint.
Finally, in contrast to the two more balanced pieces by Business Week and the NYT, NPR's Julie Rovner reported a much more opinionated piece called "Mitt Romney's Shifting Stance on Health Care." (5) The piece has a critical tone from the very beginning, making Romney sound childish and stupid. Rovner points out that when Romney said that he might not want to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, he is in express violation of his own Party's platform. She makes a strong case against Romney by simply making him appear ignorant and dense; like a child who makes a mess that his parents have to then clean up. Rovner says, "Not surprisingly, it was only a matter of hours before the campaign walked the candidate's comments back."She brings up several other points to add to the less than intelligent picture that she is painting of the candidate, reminding her audience -- like Robinson did in the Washington Post -- that Romney is opposed to the very type of mandate that he himself implemented when he was Governor of MA.
Similar terms/themes are used throughout all of the media coverage above. Namely, these are terms that are specific to the 2012 presidential campaign and/or healthcare reform, such as: "coverage for people with pre-existing conditions," "central theme of his campaign," "keeping some of the pieces," "where Mitt Romney stands on health-care reform." If I were pitching this story to the media from the Romney camp, I would first go back and clarify my message internally with my Communications team. Looking at this from a strictly objective angle, my first thought is that Romney's track record as former Governor of MA is going to make him look contradictory. I have some previous experience working on a political campaign and the one thing that I know holds true is that a candidate must have a clear approach to an issue.
The American people need to know exactly where he/she stands -- the more black and white the better. Of course, sometimes the approach is to purposely put oneself in the gray area, but this should not happen unless intentional. After clarifying Romney's position, I would find 1-3 things about Obamacare that he cannot accept as part of his platform and use stories to explain why. I would pitch the story, leading with the positive: Romney is enthusiastic about these aspects of Obamacare, but cannot accept this health care law in its entirely because...name reasons that really hit home for the American people; stories that they can relate to or scenarios that they can envision for themselves. This is not an easy task and one that I would not welcome at the moment.
If I were to report on this story as a member of the press, I would probably go back to Romney's campaign team and tell them outright that his willingness to keep some of Obamacare, but to eliminate the mandate from the law seems very contradictory. I would tell them the issues that I had with it, but want to sit down to dig deeper into their approach. Better to be straight forward and honest; they may actually give me an answer that I can work with and one that will clarify things for my audience (my ultimate goal). This article touches on something so much more meaningful than a candidate's public image. We are talking about a law the affects every single American and an upcoming election that will determine the next President of the United States. As a reporter, I would see the situation as demanding as much of my in-depth review as my deadline allows.
*For the purpose of this post, I am using the terms "healthcare reform," "health-care law," "Obamacare" and "Obama Health Care Law" interchangeably.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/us/politics/romney-adopts-softer-tone-in-critique-of-obama.html?_r=1 2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/politics/romneys-pledge-shows-repealing-health-law-to-be-complex.html?_r=1&ref=politics
3.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-romneys-health-care-dither/2012/09/10/6e9044e4-fb67-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
4.) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-10/romney-says-he-would-keep-parts-of-obama-health-care-law
5.) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/10/160898409/mitt-romneys-shifting-stance-on-health-care
