Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Why do some journalists write against their interests?

The BBC has a smarmy, patronizing article about U.S. voters "voting against their interests". It is assumed that interests means solely monetary ones, and the author sings the praises of Obamacare. The slip-shod journalist can't be bothered to get a single quote from a conservative, nor to note that liberals can hardly agree on what should constitute "reform".

But the BBC is a British government organ, and in advocating the socialization of U.S. health care, they are hurting their own future health care. After all, most advances in medicine come from the U.S., where innovation is rewarded with money. Why do some journalists write against their interests?

Even Canada, which has a far better health care system than its parent, relies on U.S. advances and uses private U.S. hospitals for the most serious cases. Newfoundland's Premier, a multi-millionaire, is coming to the U.S. for heart surgery. Hat tip to Drudge.

Don't get me wrong: the US healthcare system needs reform. But reform is a process, not a particular bill, and the process has a long way to go.


Mr. Dough said...

OK, I'll admit I'm not going to read the BBC article - I can pretty much imagine from your description and other BBC things I've read - but it calls to mind a sentence in an article I read recently in the UK Telegraph. This was about an organist who cured her crippling arthritis with vinegar. I caught this sentence: "...I didn't need to see the specialist anymore so I cancelled my appointment when it finally came through..." (emphasis mine).
I find the UK press makes the US mainstream media look positively right-wing. But the Telegraph is better than most and has the occasional interesting story.
Blessings Chops! Here is the article URL:
- Mr. D

Mr. Dough said...

Found after reviewing the article I mentioned in previous comment: