A Major Tea Party Foul- Week of November 1-7, 2009
This week, that being the first week of November 2009, found itself, amidst election politicking and a not-so-surprising Bloomberg victory, in the center of a highly contested health care debate. And with this debate came staunch disapproval almost unanimously from the Republican Party. This includes, yes, “tea party zanies”, as a wise man known as Frank Rich said in an opinion column of The New York Times today. Specifically, a protest on Capitol Hill on November 5th, right before the House Bill for healthcare reform was coming to a vote.
So. The “Tea Party”. How did the media cover them this week?
Some major observations first:
A detailed search through the websites of both The Washington Post and The New York Times yielded no actual full-page day-one articles about the “Tea Party” assembly on Capitol Hill. All the articles covering the issue were either siphoned through in other stories about the Republican Party in general or the health care debate or something related. Opinion and blog columns from the major papers were where the real coverage was found.
The major political blogs, not surprisingly, were all over this event. Perhaps a nod to both the nature of the blogging medium and their respective definition of “newsworthiness” itself.
Talkingpointsmemo.com: “Tea Partiers Came With 2010 Warnings” by Christina Bellantoni
Crowd Count: “many thousands”
TPM’s article stressed an “anti-incumbent” sentiment throughout the protest, but also makes sure permeable rancor was gleaned from their summary. The first sentence says it best:
“The scene today at the Capitol Hill Tea Party probably worried incumbents of both parties.”
Bellantoni goes on to explain the various signs, commenting on the most vicious ones, as well as the general Republican response (pleased). The fifth graf, although definitely opinionated, uses evidence to justify its main purpose, that these voters are angry about spending regardless of what the bill is about.
“The group is angry, and in many cases ill-informed about the 1,900-page health care bill that they delighted in shredding across the Capitol today. But they vote, and each person told me they are angry with incumbents and government spending.”
Politico.com: “Tea partiers descend on Capitol Hill” by By Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner
Crowd Count: “at least 10,000”
Politico’s article by Allen and Shiner produced a much more lengthy article than TPM or the newspapers for that matter. This isn’t surprising, however, since this protest is of great interest to Politico and its readership. While the article lists a couple of uncouth picket signs, the article goes nowhere nearly as detailed as WAPO or NYT. The main gist from this article, instead, is encapsulated in the second page, in the first graf:
“”It may well be that the frustration expressed by activists – who came from Bluffton, S.C., Des Moines, Iowa, Dorris, Calif., and many other cities and towns across the country – far outstrips their influence over the final outcome of the legislation.”
This reiterates the lede, but emphasizes the point of underrepresentation much more clearly. Politico alleges that this “Tea Party” is not only underrepresented, but without a voice in Congress. What a pity…oh, wait. Did Politico forget? These Tea Party protesters represent a small, but extremely vocal section of the Republican Party. They are by no means even close to a sizable portion of the party itself.
The Washington Post: “No one said freedom was pretty” by Dana Milbank
Crowd Count: “about 5,000”
Milbank’s article this week, in an opinion column, stressed the crass level of dialogue that occured at the protest, asking,
“Now, objecting to the health-care bill is one thing. But doesn’t it send the wrong message for House Republicans to hold an event on the Capitol grounds full of hateful and gruesome words and images? “
He made painstaking observation of the signs, especially noting the one comparing healthcare reform to the Holocaust victims at Dachau.
Milbank juxtaposed these observations with a very interesting irony, one all of the other news organizations reviewed in this post completely left out. A man suffered a heart attack during the protest, and recieved government healthcare to save his life, as well as others. Milbank observes:
“By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. “
A very adept, logical argument against the fundamental logical contradictions with the Tea Partiers this week.
The New York Times: “On the Hill, Protesters Chant ‘Kill the Bill’” By David M. Herszenhorn
Crowd Count: “thousands”
The New York Times did a blog report on this event. Besides giving a general summary of the event, the article stressed that many of the protestors didn’t come from a point of not having health insurance, or even understanding the problem fully. Their interview with Alan R. Davis, a protestor, illustrated this point exceptionally:
“As for controlling medical costs, Mr. Davis did not have any ready solutions. He said that last December, his wife, Jennifer, had a heart transplant at the Cleveland Clinic. But he said he had no idea what it had cost. Her insurance coverage has an annual deductible of $4,000. After that, he said, everything was covered “100 percent.””
An interesting angle. That, like Talkingpointsmemo, stressed the uninformed and Fox-News-regurgitory nature of the protest. Herszenhorn notes:
“many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “
This blog post does not have the time, nor the space, to address Fox New’s recent whipping in the political area for trustworthiness or legitimacy. But it is interesting to note that just mentioning Fox News now carries with it a connotation of complete glib infotainment.
So! Overall: Tea Partiers lost this week. Besides Politico’s approving article, which even noted some of the crude signs, the general consensus is the Tea Party has gotten a little too crazy. That’s all for this week!
