Reporting on health care policies

Trudy Lieberman came to speak to my class about reporting on health care. She had some fair criticisms of journalists and I learned a few things.

1. Think before you write: if information someone gives you seems fishy, look into it.
2. Research before you write: even if something doesn’t seem fishy, double check what people tell you.
3. Find new sources: don’t always go to the same sources or to the same people other journalists use.
4. Add context: this is the solution to faux balance (making both sides seem equal).

These was great advice. But there was something she said I don’t agree with.

Lieberman said it’s the journalists responsibility to indicate which side is right or wrong. She said journalists should be analyzing ObamaCare for the public to tell them if it’s good for them or not.

I have to disagree. I think it’s a journalists job to unbiasedly lay out all the information for the general public to determine who is in the right. For some people ObamaCare might be a great thing. For others it’s not. This can all be based on the exact same set of facts. It’s not a journalists job to try to sway opinions, just to communicate the information.

For example, last year I wrote an article about whether it was right or wrong to eat horse meat. I am a vegan and believe that eating horse meat is unethical. Still, I presented both sides. The side I disagree with has some great points, although it didn’t change my opinion. I think that some people who read the article will finish it with the same opinion they had to begin with. Others may change their mind based on the facts. Either way, they may be turning away horse meat or special ordering it from the butcher after reading what I wrote. And, despite my personal opinion, I think that’s okay because it’s not my job to change minds by injecting opinion. It’s my job to lay out the facts.

One thing was very clear from what Lieberman said: reporting on health care policies is tricky.

CTV had responsible coverage of a B.C. policy that health care practitioners either get a flu shot or wear a face mask. It mentioned that there were opponents to the policy and gave their reasons. It also listed the reasons in favour of the policy. The policies in favour clearly outweighed those against. CBC’s article on the same policy gave faux balance to the issue, which made it clear that CTV covered the issue well.

CBC gives both sides of the argument, but it exaggerates the argument against the policy to make them more equal. It gives an extreme example of a circumstance when both wearing a face mask and getting the flu shot could be dangerous. The article didn’t acknowledge that this is not the normal experience of people in the industry or that the judge (as CTV reported) said in his decision that in special circumstances the policy would be waived. However, it did post the courts decision to the legal dispute about the policy under the story which gives the public easy access to the reasons the judge had to approve the policy.