Anyone still think that PBS and the NYT are bastions of left-wing radicalism?

I just listened to that episode (podcast of the show). It does talk [a bit] about the public option. I agree that those pushing for single-payer were kind of shoved off as just left-wing protests. But the focus of the doc was on Obama and Congress, and - to me - did a good job of showing how this bill became a serious of ridiculous compromises, in which single-payer was one of its many casualties.

It's about time that people woke up to the fact that PBS has been co-opted by the right wing noise machine. More and more "regressive" messages are being sold on "noncommercial" public television and radio. PBS is now playing the "fair and balanced" game of presenting both the truth and a countervailing lie as equal just as in the rest of the media. And this has actually been going on for sometime which is part of how G.W. Bush was able to lie us into war in Iraq.

There are still progressive voices on PBS such as "Independent Lens," but the Bush 41 Administration's campaign to skew PBS to the hard right is becoming more and more evident.

And has anyone noticed the "non"commercials on PBS children's programing? I happened upon one ad for a resort depicting a child cavorting in the surf. I find it despicable to market to children under the guise of noncommercial television, but I'm certain that we can look forward to more and more of the same.

I'd hoped that the Obama Administration would would turn the tide of the commercialization and propagandizing of PBS, but since he won't support his nominees even when he has the chance, it seems unlikely.

It's not just Frontline, it's ALL of PBS.
All of the self congratulatory PBS programming
is a corporate sham.
The Noooz Hour begins and ends with an
advert homily from Chevron.
The Nooz hour idea of a panel on
financial reform is
a Reuters writer and an AEI person as
"interpreters" of financial nooz.
Nova has been a complete fraud since
November, 1980. They still do shows like
"secrets of the FBI crime lab" and call that
"science".
Frontline's announcer Will Lyman now
does voice work for BMW.
On PBS there is a reserved big block of time
for every sort of fascist agenda
(McLaughlin, formerly Buckley,
The Smith Richardson crowd, the Olin crowd
etc. etc) But hardly any real journalism at
all. What does that blue screen mean?
The one with the orwellian newspeak phrase:
"CPB, a private company funded by the American people"?? PBS: pure b.s.

One piece of information from this crappy media production that I appreciated was its focus on Karen Ignani's role in pushing for mandates. (Though I think they were also trying to deflect responsibility from Obama.) That is, make no mistake, the mandates were demanded by the industry if the "reform" was to go through. As discussed by Wendell Potter in his (also too) brief appearance.

Even from the p.o.v. of those supporting the bill, so that some people can more easily obtain health care, it was outrageous that they completely omitted Nancy Pelosi (except for this dumb moment they wasted our time with), not to mention, abortion (duh), and Katheleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health.

Although I have to say, KS, has truly been absent, throughout this long effort. Purely a figurehead, it seems, for the administration to drag out and stand there silently by Obama's side at key moments. I guess for her Nordic "slim" "sophisticated" look.

When she did open her mouth for one moment in this whole journey, she said something absurd.

And of course, was quoted at another point stated bluntly what this has all been about for our elected officials. "To keep them in business."

Nancy Pelosi though has been extremely involved, and so have some other key female members of Congress.

Just sayin', it's amazing, that they completely wrote out women, in this day and age of video production. It was such a stupid piece of journalism.

It is getting harder to believe that PBS is "viewer supported" as they claim since there are so many 10 second spots that they do from oil companies and other industries, which probably pay them well, so that they can obscure the truth. In my city, almost every single night they cut in on shows to petition for more money and even though they still do a bit more journalistic work, which is non-existent in the other stations, they are getting disappointing to watch.

At the meeting called by the President the day before the Massachusetts Senatorial election, Nancy Pelosi was shown as pessimistic about getting the Senate bill through the House. It did not show, however, how later, as the President was considering watering down the bill, Pelosi insisted that they go for the Senate Bill as is and fight for it, opposing a weaker bill. We can thank her for her vigorous efforts, superb political skills and faith that they would pull it off. We got a health care bill passed that, while lacking some important tough aspects, will still provide care for 32 million uninsured Americans and prevent some of the serious abuses by insurance companies.

"the topic was Obama's
Sat, 04/17/2010 - 11:26 — Anonymous (not verified)

the topic was Obama's deal

the program showed that he traded away everything in the beginning to get a deal so he could brag about getting a deal

i bet a lot of people knew nothing about it and more still have no clue

the show was not about health care -- it was about crooked politicians . . ."

Yes, the topic was Obama's deal, but I couldn't stop my blood boiling when Karen Ignani stated that the insurance industry would have to raise costs based on information from their accountants and actuaries. There was no mention by Frontline about the enormous profits enjoyed by the health insurance industry. From Ignani's comment a poorly informed person might assume that the health insurance industry was barely breaking even. Leaving Ignani's statement unchallenged made her comment sound reasonable. And this is just one instance where a voice-over narrative would have illustrated how crooked the whole "deal" was.

The tone of the program left me feeling that Frontline was in perfect sympathy with the players in health reform. Health reform" illustrates how the language has changed from "health care reform" to "health reform" when in fact it is just feeble health insurance industry regulation in large part.

I highly recommend watching c-span.

You can hear/watch and decide for yourself.

There is a bill passed, and Rahm Emanuel is still in the White House. Perhaps another generation will see "reform." Not this one.