What Will Break the Single-Payer Media Blackout?

Prompted by a comment from Carla Rautenberg, I did a quick scan of my Google Reader RSS feed to see if there was a national news story on single-payer recently that I just overlooked.  Sure enough, there was one – but it was yet another story talking about the impact single-payer advocates will have on getting the public plan passed.  That fits a pattern we’ve seen throughout the year.  It makes me wonder what will have to happen to break through the media blackout on single-payer.  Will Dr. Quentin Young have to go through the town square naked like Lady Godiva to get noticed?

By the way, not being the preferred plan of the president is scarcely an excuse.  As referenced earlier today, op-eds, working groups and radio messages focusing on what was in essence John McCain’s health care plan are regularly pushed through the media without much resistance.  The complete lack-of-a-plan presented in the GOP alternative budget got some ink, despite being a far less serious plan than HR 676.  The rumor mill around the Wyden-Bennett plan has subsided but was a frequent topic of speculation only a few months ago.  The Massachusetts plan gets regular mention and analysis, usually in its own right, but surprisingly frequently through the lens of “could we nationalize this?”, despite no push from Obama to adopt the Massachusetts model as-is.

I’m not naïve or overly hopeful about what motivates our modern media machine.  It feeds on stories about conflict, which is why the most often mention of the single-payer plan and those who support it are in the context of the “rift” they might create among supporters of health care reform.  It feeds on the new and surprising, which is why single-payer most recently is mentioned as part of the oh-so-new public plan.  When something meets our expectation – like a grassroots single-payer movement trying to influence health care reform – it tends to get ignored.  I don’t recall “Mother Theresa Still Caring for the Poor” being considered a must-read story in the 1980s, even though it was arguably more important than half the gossip-y stories on any given day.  Finally, the great beast feeds on celebrity.  Obama is one of the few people guaranteed to sell papers, at least right now.  Ted Kennedy has barely been seen in Washington, for obvious reasons, but his efforts to broker a health care compromise pop up in the news on average every two weeks.  Compared to those two luminaries, you’re not going to get hits on your news site from a big picture Rep. George Miller – the only congressional chairman with jurisdiction on health care who’s currently a cosponsor of HR 676.  These are preposterous rules, to be sure, but it's the world we inhabit.

The shame of it is that if we ever get to a single-payer system in this country, it will be because of outside-in pressure from the ground up, not from an inside-out confluence of committee chairs in Congress.  Grassroots organization is important, yes, but so is a solid presence in the media to change the debate and attract new recruits.  Would a more aggressive and conflict-driven approach to conservative or so-called “moderate” politicians of either party, similar to the political targeting employed by labor unions and other single-issue advocacy groups, net the single-payer movement more exposure, or cheapen its message?  What could generate a “surprise” to focus the media to look with new eyes on the single-payer movement, especially given that it’s been relatively unchanged in its basic message for at least a few decades?  Would a sudden surge in the movement in an unexpected place – the South, or a “purple” state like Kansas – generate new buzz and new momentum?  What celebrity spokesperson could rally attention toward the advocacy for HR 676 in a similar way to which Al Gore rallies the environmental and clean energy advocates?

The Lady Godiva analogy isn’t just a snappy punchline.  She’s revered as a symbol of justice for courageously going way out of her comfort zone to overturn the unjust and unfair government policy of her day.  It’s very comfortable to simply have a good argument that your confident can win on the merits.  But the 24-hour news cycle doesn’t give points for having a good argument – it gives points for the unexpected.

(Photo credit:  mtlin on Flickr.)