Same Difference?

"Bowling 1, Health Care 0." That's the title of Elizabeth Edwards' article on what has not gotten good media coverage in these presidential primary races: the actual policy proposals of various candidates. It's more fascinating (and much easier) to speculate on the characters of the candidates or to view them as entertainers, to be judged the same way we might judge a ballet or a movie performance.

Besides, policy proposals are bo-o-ring, like nutritious and sensible food, while reading about the candidates' bowling mishaps or whiskey shots is like snacking on some crunchy and fatty French fries. If you also believe that voters will ultimately vote on those fast-food grounds, well, there's not much point to writing about the issues.

I agree with Edwards' major points, obviously. But substantive articles on the differences between the three candidates can be found by the diligent. For example, Laura Meckler's Wall Street Journal article tells us what McCain, Obama and Clinton plan to do to control health care costs, and if you wade deep into the piece you can learn about the differences in the three plans. But you will not learn that from the title of the piece: "Candidates' Health-Care Ideas May Not Offer Immediate Cure."

I suspect that lots of readers are like me in that I skim through the titles on the page to decide on which articles I'm going to read. Often I just read the title and go on to something more interesting. Had I done that with the Meckler article I might have come away convinced that there is no difference whatsoever in the cost-containment aspects of the three health care plans.

Something similar is true about an otherwise excellent article in the New York Times by Larry Rohter and Michael Cooper, which discusses the differences in the candidates' economic plans in great detail. But the title of the piece? What does it tell about those differences? " 3 Candidates With 3 Financial Plans, but One Deficit."

One deficit, sure. But the size of that deficit is three times as large in the McCain plan than in either of the Obama or the Clinton plan. If all you read is the headlines you will go away thinking that all three candidates' policies would have the same impact on the deficit.

I don't know about you but I'm not exactly irresistibly drawn to reading articles with titles which can be boiled down to "no difference between the candidates", even if the actual pieces are chock full of information on those very differences. Indeed, if I wanted to devise headlines which would minimize the number of readers of a particular policy piece, I'd title it something like "same difference". That's always going to lose to "Bowling 1, Health Care 0" when readers decide which article to read in detail.

Comments (21)

1. All the "there's no difference" folks (typically followers of a certain perennial Presidential candidates) are at the least self-defeating...at worst, egomaniacal purists who want to wait around until things go soooooooo much in the sewer, that "the American people wake up" and elect somebody who can't poll 2% in the Democratic primaries.

   Fortunately, after 2000, their world-view has been pretty much discounted!

   Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 11:57am

2. but policy is soooooo boring!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2008 @ 12:23pm

3. Posted by marybretbrad at 04/29/2008

   Ari Melber already did a post on that subject. Nine total comments allowed.

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/29/2008 @ 3:12pm

4. Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law

   April 28, 2008

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/29/2008 @ 3:20pm

5. <i>Have you read all 1 million pages of the tax code? No? Maybe you just read the stuff relevant to you own situation. You've read a lot of books on economics. Have you also read all there is to read about medicine before opining on healthcare issues? Do you read everything there is to read about engineering before you drive over a bridge?</i>

   Funnily enough, I do read almost everything I can find on all topics. :)

   But that's just the way I am, and that was not the point of the post. The point was that it would be possible to make the policy discussions interesting and fun to read. It would be possible to explain the differences so that they are clearer to readers.

   Posted by jgoodrich at 04/29/2008 @ 3:39pm

6. Quote: Different topic: when is someone going to get around to writing and article to whine about the SCOTUS decision on voter ID?

   Why "whining"?

   If you mean what the negative consequences of the decision might be, those are easy.

   The requirements are nothing for middle-class voters who already have photo IDs, on the whole, or for the rich. They may be a problem for the poor and the elderly voters and people who don't drive or travel abroad.

   Those groups need to pay extra money in order to vote. So the impact is like a poll tax for them.

   Posted by jgoodrich at 04/29/2008 @ 3:44pm

7. Posted by jgoodrich at 04/29/2008

   Ms Goodrich....Indiana provided IDs for free!

   Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 4:05pm

8. Mary,

   Believe it or not, all voters do not have access to the Internet, or to cable TV for that matter, so it really isn't too much to ask for the press to compare and contrast the candidates health care plans rather than reporting endlessly on the horse race aspects of the campaign. If the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Economic Policy Institute can compare the candidates' positions, then I don't see why the mainstream press shouldn't.

   Internet snobs and elitists like you - and I've know liberal and leftie ones as well as libertarian and conservative ones - seem to assume that everyone has the same amount of time (and resources) that they do to troll the web and read each candidate's policy plans, or at least their executive summaries. Wake up and smell the roses. Most of us would appreciate a reasonable summary of the candidates' positions written by someone we trust, to a greater or lesser degree. We might even appreciate summaries and analysis from a number of sources. But to expect every voter to go out and re-invent the wheel is silly.

   Or, in your case, an excuse to call the mainstream press liberal (on anything but social issues, a great big "Hah!" to that myth) and anyone who calls for decent and thorough journalism a liberal elitist. Bullspit!

   Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/2008 @ 4:46pm

9. Ms Goodrich....Indiana provided IDs for free!

   Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 | ignore this person

   And as I pointed out in response to Ari Melber's post on this subject, you can only get your "Free" Voter ID if you have a CERTIFIED birth certificate, which is rarely if ever free, or naturalization papers. As usual, this falls under the category of "Too good to be true...".

   Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/2008 @ 4:51pm

10. Posted by marybretbrad at 04/29/2008

    Time is money, MBB. Try hopping down to your local library and try surfing for a few hours to check out the candidate's policy positions.

    There are queues, time limits and every sort of annoyance - and I know how to use the Internet. I can only imagine what the experience is like for someone less Internet saavy.

    I would much rather walk over to where they keep the newspapers and read something relevant and not have to waste a lot of time.

    BTW, I love people who talk about the library, who clearly don't spend a lot of time in one using the services they are recommending.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/29/2008 @ 6:35pm

11. Posted by cka2nd at 04/29/2008

    "rarely if ever"...that sounds as if you're not POSITIVE, CKA?

    And if not, then you haven't disproven my point, have you?

    DOES Indiana provide the IDs free AND free access to certified birth certificates or other necessary papers? Or not?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 7:40pm

12. Certified birth certificates in Indiana must purchased. You'll notice from the following list that none are "free". However, given the need for this kind of documentation for practically every aspect of your life, I'm not sure CKA2nd has a valid argument on this point.

    http://www.in.gov/isdh/bdcertifs/lhdfees/toc.htm

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/29/2008 @ 9:21pm

13. Posted by srjenkins at 04/29/2008

    Exactly. At some point, we're expected to believe that the same homeless (for example) that cannot exercise ANY means of obtaining a valid identification...are all fired up to VOTE though?!?!?!?

    And we are left with the idea that this is NOT about "poor people or students unable to obtain an ID because it's too much of a hurdle"...and the idea that it's more about some partisan gamesmanship.

    If there is a fee or ONEROUS burden in getting an ID...fix it. But I get very suspicious when the same people who tell us that Federally-run health care will work....tells us that obtaining an ID is "too burdensome" for the average citizen. No paperwork going to be required at the "Federal Hospital"?...if to make sure that no Munchausen cases are wasting resources?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 10:22pm

14. BTW, I love people who talk about the library, who clearly don't spend a lot of time in one using the services they are recommending.

    Posted by srjenkins

    the library rules!

    here's a great article:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/294036_homelessness29.html

    oh well. not the one i was looking for, but it tells the same story.

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,600117373,00.html

    same story.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:20:16 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 01:16am

15. how informative is the Rev. Wright story, the poor bitter working people who lost their jobs comment or for that matter, whether Hillary lied about the sniper. None of this is very important but the media drones on and on. What a person actually stands for is important and the media should focus on this. Remember the great job the media did before the Iraq invasion. If some poor slob like me can use the internet to read the UN documents about their search before the invasion and determine Bush and the boys were lying than the media should have been able to determine this. The US media is failing the public.

    Posted by rtspoons at 04/30/2008 @ 02:51am

16. I rent and I don't own a car, nor do I have a passport (that, I should correct). I've needed a certified birth certificate once in my life. Now, imagine that you are a poor, black senior citizen in the South. There's a very good chance that some of the very SAME people who lived through Jim Crow, who registered to vote during the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960's, will be disenfranchised by these kinds of laws because they don't have a driver's liscence or any of the other documentation that you folks seem to take for granted.

    And yet, it's OK to do this when there is no current evidence - Kennedy over Nixon 48 years ago doesn't count - that in-person voter fraud takes place on a regular basis, let alone that it is a crisis? Jeez, if this were some kind of business regulation, you folks would claim it was unnecessary regulation based on "junk science" or a baseless "feeling" that there was a problem.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 09:08am

17. Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008

    You're a "poor black senior citizen"...

    who DOESN'T have a Social Security and Medicare card?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 09:13am

18. Mary,

    Granted, the difference's between Obama and Clinton's health care plans are not stark as night and day, but Obama's opponents have certainly made hay of what differences there are. Heck, I've even read a brief libertarian analysis that noted that the criticism of Obama's plan for not being "universal" was misguided, since his plan would actually target the folks who most need assistance in getting health care without burdening those who can afford health insurance but have chosen not to get it.

    A lot of people will take these issues seriously if they are presented to them in a serious manner.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 09:14am

19. You're a "poor black senior citizen"...

    who DOESN'T have a Social Security and Medicare card?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008

    Do Medicare cards have photo ID's? My Social Security card certainly doesn't, and I got it through the mail 30+ years ago?

    And Indiana might take these as your second form of ID, but still wants either the certified birth certificate or your naturalization papers, one or the other, as your first form of ID in order to get your "Free" voter ID card.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2008 @ 09:18am

20. Posted by marybretbrad at 04/30/2008

    Well, I'm sure Americans will just jump for joy, Darin, and forget their lost jobs and mortgage defaults...and run to John McCain promising "four more years!"

    Congrats!

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 11:04am

21. The economy grew at 0.6% in first quarter

    Posted by marybretbrad

    sez who?

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:54:49 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 1:50pm