Whether intentional or not, today’s Boston Globe offers a revealing micro-example of why voters stay home, and why even well-intentioned voters make bad decisions because they are given awful and misleading information.
On the front page (pictured above), we have a full-page “profile” with lots of “human interest” fluff and ZERO substance (to be fair, the earlier counterpart for Don Berwick was just as bad). Above that story is summary of last night’s debate that dutifully reports the exchanges (including several about Ms. Coakley’s settlement with Partners), and offers no background or insight into the issue. It is, literally, a he-said, she-said piece.
Meanwhile, buried in the business section of the SAME paper, is “Partners merger would raise health costs, panel says“.
Here is what was written about the debate exchanges regarding the Partner’s settlement in that front-page “news” piece (emphasis mine):
Grossman and Berwick also criticized Coakley for giving the green light to Partners HealthCare System, the state’s largest network of hospitals and doctors, to acquire South Shore Hospital and Hallmark Health System. Both Berwick and Grossman said the agreement, which still needs a judge’s approval, would raise costs.
Coakley, again remaining cool, said she stood by the deal and argued it would level the playing field for competition and help reduce costs.
Here are some excerpts from the piece excerpted from the business section:
Attorney General Martha Coakley is renegotiating a controversial settlement with Partners HealthCare after a state commission said Wednesday that a proposed takeover of two North Shore hospitals would raise costs and increase Partners’ already formidable market power.
…
The renegotiation began immediately after the commission endorsed findings that Boston-based Partners’ acquisition of Hallmark would raise costs up to $23 million a year and stifle competition, according to the attorney general’s office.
I hope I’m not the only person who finds this dissonance striking.
In the debate, Martha Coakley says (if we are to believe the front-page piece) that she “stands by” the deal. In FACT, unless the business section piece is lying, her office says that she is “renegotiating” the SAME deal.
Was Martha Coakley lying during the debate when she said she “stands by” the deal, or was she lying when she said she was “renegotiating” the deal? Is this how Martha Coakley “stands by” something?
It is no wonder that voters stay home in droves and make wrong-headed decisions when they do show up. The story in the business section was DIRECTLY relevant to the story on the front page. It wasn’t just Mr. Berwick and Mr. Grossman who said the deal would increase costs, it was the state commission appointed to investigate the deal.
The Globe blew this story. The Globe is blowing this election. Massachusetts voters do not have the information they need to make informed decisions. Martha Coakley is, as usual, distorting the facts, dancing around her own positions, and evading the truth about what’s really taking place.
…your beef is more with the Globe than with Coakley. Do the reporters on the various stories not talk to each other?
I read it that his beef is (1) with the Globe for not calling out a politician’s obvious BS; and (2) with the politician for spewing such BS in the first place.
The situation with Partners is outrageous. They dominate healthcare in this state, and they are able to dictate their own prices.
Coakley gave away our healthcare future in order to get donations from Partners’ principals.
Just a gaping inconsistency, as we have become used from candidate Martha Coakley.
What’s gonna come of us, Blue Mass Group types, when Coakley bags the primary election? How many will break with the Dem party to support her opponent?
Not many I suspect.
How many will not be invested in the race and won’t give their money or time to working for Coakley in any way?
Probably a lot.