Ezra Klein: So Boring!

« Prisons, Democracy, and Political Opportunism | Main | Of Bauer and Broder »

March 25, 2007

So Boring!

By Ezra

I know I'm supposed to get on The Politico for titling their report on today's Democratic presidential forum "More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Healthcare." I know I should blast them for the dismissive opener that explained, "because you did not want to spend your Saturday sitting in a room for three hours listening to Democratic presidential candidates tell you how they are going to provide universal health care for America, Politico did it for you." But such attacks are disingenuous. I've also joked that healthcare is boring. And, to The Politico's credit, they had a reporter at the forum, and they actually reported the substance of each candidate's comments.

However, that blithe dismissal of public interest in policy reporting is, I'm coming to believe, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media tells Americans that issues like health care are too complicated for them to understand and too dull for them to take interest in, and the public gets the message. Tell everyone that something is dull, and they believe you.

In fact, I was going through my old Health of Nations series the other day, and I noticed that I repeatedly joked about how boring this all was ("I'm your host, Ezra, and I'll be taking you on a deadly-dull tour through England's health care system"), how turned off my readers would be, how wonked out my blog was getting. I don't make those jokes anymore. That series was well-read, and widely appreciated. I'd underestimated my audience, and that was a mistake.

Indeed, over time, I've become convinced that folks are actually interested in substantive policy writing, but it has to be clearly and enthusiastically done -- just as we demand from other subjects. So I'm not going to attack The Politico for a bad lede; the good reporting outweighs the lame stereotyping. But I am going to suggest that political reporters stop assuming they're read by idiots. Policy needn't be apologized for. It simply needs to be done well. Just like any other subject. And handicapping your own writing by telling the reader they won't enjoy it isn't helpful on any level.

March 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

How can you find health care boring and also be passionate about it?

Posted by: yoyo | Mar 25, 2007 5:02:08 AM

Or were you just being self-deprecating?

Posted by: yoyo | Mar 25, 2007 5:03:35 AM

If you're like me, with two aging parents, a mentally ill sibling and having recently been hospitalized because of a traffic accident, all whilst having no health insurance, health policy can be pretty fucking fascinating.

Something can only remain boring until it affects you on a visceral level.

I predict that this, health care, will be the landmark issue for the post-boomer generation. It just hasn't hit the fan yet. It will, though, soon.

Posted by: Thomas | Mar 25, 2007 6:10:12 AM

I've become convinced that folks are actually interested in substantive policy writing, but it has to be clearly and enthusiastically done -- just as we demand from other subjects.

You've opened up my eyes, Ezra! One should plug away with passion on the issues that you feel are important, even if your audience seems weary. (I have my favorites, too.)

Thanks!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 25, 2007 9:06:08 AM

I actually think that healthcare policy is inherently interesting. This is coming from a layperson's point of view, but to me healthcare is so inescapably human at its core, and matters so much to people's lives, that even abstract policy discussions have a drama and urgency to them that prevents me from just tuning out.

Posted by: Jason | Mar 25, 2007 10:53:09 AM

I was making the easy joke. I find health care interesting, but the trope is that it's dull and complicated, so I went with it.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 25, 2007 11:00:40 AM

As for the complexity, that seems like an odd objection. Most people have managed the complexity of their HMOs or whatever. I have yet to see a national health care proposal that tops the labrynthine nature of your average HMO.

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Mar 25, 2007 11:06:59 AM

What struck me most about that article was just how lame the health care positions of the Democratic candidates are. What a bunch of weasely, fearful, mealy-mouthed horseshit.

Here's John Edwards, whom I just assumed would have a good solid proposal, still talking about having employers foot the bill. Great idea, John. The one freaking chance we have of building enough momentum to overcome the fight from the health care and insurance industries is the promise of increasing global competitiveness to every other industry. And don't get me started on how lousy this position is for very small businesses and self-employed folks -- some of the very people who are most in need of national health care right now.

Meanwhile, Hillary's so busy pandering to every single entrenched interest and constituency real and imagined that I can't figure out exactly what she's offering up as an improvement.

Obama - wtf?!?!? You haven't been thinking about this for years, already?

Bill Richardson doesn't have a plan, he has a slogan. Gimme a break.

All the rest are all the rest. And yes, that includes Kucinich, who is apparently also reduced to sloganeering on this issue.

This is beyond dissapointing. No turkee for these folks.

Posted by: Brautigan | Mar 25, 2007 11:32:41 AM

Go with your passion and the readers will become engaged! Never underestimate the intelligence of your readers and you will remain relevant as other media empires fall.

Thanks for adding to the health care debate. Because of your writing, I understand the issues with much more clarity today.

Posted by: danimal | Mar 25, 2007 12:25:08 PM

I've always hated it when teachers prefaced the math part with some caution. Why not just segue into the problem/numbers and let people decide after whether they liked that part. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: Megan | Mar 25, 2007 12:25:19 PM

The Politico is correct - we don't want to listen to the candidates spout slogans for 3 hours. That's why we read blogs instead of watching Hardball.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 25, 2007 12:58:54 PM

The implicit assumption is that policy must entertain us or else it's not something that we will be interested in discussing. Normal people- those not involved in media- have to deal with jobs everyday that aren't entertaining or contain elements that aren't particularly entertaining.

My problem here is that the press is focused on the entertainment value. Yes, healthcare is dull. So what. The question is whether it is something that is essential to how we live our lives. If it is, screw the entertainment value.

Not everything that is covered by the press needs to be fascinating titilation or a spectacle. It's not just that they create what is dull or interesting. More fundamentally, they require it to be interesting rather than what people need to hear. If you limit discussions in life to what people find interesting- not a whole lot of things would ever get done.

Posted by: akaison | Mar 25, 2007 1:24:55 PM

Two thoughts:

1) I don't think it's that the healthcare crisis, or the proposed solutions are boring; I think the thing is that the problem and the proposed solutions are complicated, and Americans value simplicity over complexity any day - it's why we have George W. Bush, it's why we get political slogans rather than substantive policy speeches, and it's why we get Entertainment Tonight and a Today show that look virtually indistinguishable from one another. Policy is complicated, and we'd have to think about it. Being entertained by simple sloganeering is much easier. When I started writing about healthcare on my blog, I realized that I was going on and on trying to fit in as many dimensions as possible. And you can't. That's why a lot of the reporting on healthcare is like the story of blindfolded people touching different parts of an elephant: a lot of disparate pieces that don't quite fit together. I don't think we can have a good substantive debate about healthcare until someone figures out how to make it straightforward and uncomplicated... which may mean never.

2) By the same token, a lot of policy wonk work is boring, and some of it is really rather unnecessary. Until Washington policy wonks become less fascinated with themselves and staring at their hands, the bad rep that "policy papers" have won't really go away... wait, is that Britney Spears?

Posted by: weboy | Mar 25, 2007 1:51:47 PM

On a tangential but still related note, here's an example of what happens when a *real* expert stands up to interpret and summarize the complex issue of world health: (hint: really so, so, not boring)

http://laloca.org/archived/5499

Although it's a long talk, the presentation of the data is extremely dramatic and incredibly effective. It actually had me on the edge of my seat. Admittedly, I am a sucker for the visual display of quantitative information, but wow.

Hat tip to Alejna at http://collectingtokens.wordpress.com

Can you imagine what journalism would be like if people like Hans Rosling were given time to present their analyses?

Posted by: John | Mar 25, 2007 1:54:12 PM

Having watched the 3 or 4 leading candidates speaking yesterday, I was struck by how foolish the Dems are in facing this major issue in the way we are.

This should not be an issue where there are three or six alternate plans offered as campaign differentiators for the primary. Yes, there currently are differences in speed, comprehensiveness, and emphasis between them, but we shouldn't be selecting a candidate based on their approach to this issue, since ultimately it will be party majorities in Congress and control of the Presidency that will determine how the outcome is determined.

Instead, I'd bet that within a day or two to initiate the process - with working groups on short leashes - and a set of concluding discussions, if all the major Dem. candidates got into a room with a good facilitor, they could emerge with a unified approach to health care reform that becomes the flag with which the party marches into the 08 election.

- all seem to agree that universal coverage, as quickly as possible, is the goal.

- most or all recognize that we can't just have a single choice offered to currently insured people since those with good coverage are largely satisfied - we must offer choice of some kind. Edward's plan to establish a new Medicare-like offering ALONGSIDE reformed current alternatives seems like a solution to this issue.

- all agree that risk pooling needs to be enlarged, and that insurers must be regulated by law to outlaw chery-picking, and require open enrollment is all plans.

- all would agree that the employee must have portable insurance that can be carried from job to job, job to no-job, or no-job to job. The longer-term goal should be insurance for people, not insurance for businesses.

- all agree that all children under some age (18? 21?) must be covered nearly immediately.

- all agree that the insurance industry must continue to have a major role in health care if choice is to be offered and current choices are to be respected.

- all agree that electronic medical records accessible to all providers must be put in place to reduce administrative costs and spotty care.

- all would likely agree that some federal plan should be offered as a choice, whether explanded Medicare, universal availability of the Fed. Health benefits choices, or whatever. This must be a CHOICE for the currently insurered, not a single mandated solution. As long as the public can choose, we have the possibility/probability that a single payer system could emerge over a span of years. That is the best that the single-payer advocates can expect to gain in this reform, so it is time to face that reality within the Dem. party, and get those single-payer advocates on board the unified reform wagon.

- all would agree that, at least as a transition, employers need to continue to offer current plans largely paid by the businesses, perhaps with short term transition incentives. For many reasons, including competitiveness globally, the longer-term goal should be to remove employers from the insurance purchasing equation (but not necessarily remove them from some contribution to the overall healh care solution.)

- all would agree that employees should pay some share of their health costs, either directly or as tax additions - subject to income floors below which the general public would pay the insurance costs.

Since public education about this issue is the crucial issue in reform/restructuring, the concept of a unified Democratic pre-primary position allows the party to focus on real candidate differences. It would avoid the opportunity for opponents of health care refrom to harp on the 'disunited democrats' and use this as a wedge issue to incite conflict within the Dem. party.

Since Edwards plan is the most fully articulated, and seems to offer solutions to most of the policy choices, his plan (and other major plans offered by other non-candidates in Congress or elsewhere) could be a good beginning for a unified Dem. proposal.

The big issue not mentioned above is costs. This will be the issue where the public could most easily be confused by critics into thinking there is no affordable solution. It is essential that this matter be addressed or the health care reform idea will continue to be divisive. From the thoughts raised in yesterday's forum, I think the best solution here and in other issues raised is to talk about stages of reform, planned in advance but subject to fine tuning as reform is put into action. We can't just talk about the first stages and ignore the long term, but we shouldn't talk about the nirvana stage without addressing short term disruption and costs, either. Initial costs of the first stages of reform will likely increase overall spending - so be it. A 100 or 300 billion dollars over a 2-4 year span is well less than the costs of Iraq which the public is bearing. Savings will come as other planned reforms are put in place in various stages.

The challenge is how to get the candidates and other reform groups to come together in 2007 with a unified Democratic proposal on a multi-stage, multi-actor plan that the entire progressive movement and independent voters can agree upon.

I doubt that the Republican candidates and party will choose to join this proposal effort, but they should not be excluded either. Perhaps some set of basic principles must be agreed to in advance as the ticket into the discussions.

So, bottom line: let's unite the Dem. party under a single reform plan for healthcare, prior to the primaries. This could be achieved, and the advantages are many for making real progress in the 08 elections and beyond.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 25, 2007 2:05:05 PM

Yes, people are interested in details. Remember the nation glued to their TVs watching Ross Perot's 60-minute infomercials? Blogs are now the only ones (almost) that fulfill this role as the MSM has pretty much moved to pure infotainment (at best) or PR for the GOP (at worst).

And I agree with JimPortlandOR that having a mandated single-payer system installed immediatelly is impossible at this point, not just impractical, no matter how nice it sounds (and that is one of our Progressive hurrah-slogans we usually don't think through).

That is why Edwards proposal is so exciting - it pits private against public head-to-head, almost ensuring that public will win out over a few years of such competition. Public coverage will always be cheaper, quicker, easier, more efficient, better and more hassle-free than private insurance. In many areas of economy, private is better: competition between many small businesses produces quality. Health care is not one of those areas because it does not produce anything of value - it spends money in providing the basic human right (one of the three, the 'life' one), thus i cannot be profitable unless someone is screwed.

Posted by: coturnix | Mar 25, 2007 2:40:42 PM

> the presentation of the data is extremely dramatic
> and incredibly effective

That was a very interesting video - thanks for the link John! I watched the entire 20 minutes without getting bored.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 25, 2007 2:54:26 PM

Hear, hear. Good on you Ezra, this is right on. I also catch myself going for the same easy joke often, when people ask me to describe my (neuroscience) research. But it's only boring if I make it boring; people are inherently interested in how their minds work just like they're interested in their health. When you have an expertise in something, it's your job to make it accessible to non-experts, and to assume that they're not so stupid that they can't follow along. I really kick myself now when I forget this.

I find it really aggravating when I hear journalists do this. He's far from alone in this, but it's one of my chief gripes about Warren Olney, the guy who does the public radio show "To The Point." He'll have experts (or spinners) on to discuss a policy issue, and then won't shut up about how very, very, hard and confusing it is for all our simple little heads. Ugh. (haven't you been on that show, Ezra?)

Posted by: cerebrocrat | Mar 25, 2007 4:14:06 PM

You seem to have hit on the salient points in this post and have put them together. You called the "boring" label "trope" painting a subject as uninteresting.
Fred Jones is still here offering "moral encouragement".
Up and down the web you run into discouragement and noise offered by "commenters" who might as well be paid agents of oppression. With the computing power and attitude of the secret police, who knows ?
It's painted as boring to turn people off investigating a crucial issue. At the same time, you are in the box of one man with tools all around him that he has not recognized and utilized.
Blue Girl Red State saw the potential. She organized motormouths ( oops ) from Political Animal's comments thread into a group blog that had people volunteering to cover certain areas of reporting to make a site with more material than any one person could hope to cover.
I've been to archived sites online where private files of essays rot because people don't know the combinations. Yet in other places groups form working parties to make information sites of current event libraries - not necessarily a wiki.
I've been trying to post links of sources where people have common interests which should enable a better transmission of ideas - not that you or Kevin Drum, for example, seem to have any trouble getting down to the nitty gritty.
I've even mused on a group del.icio.us bookmark file people could share - but Bloglines, Technorati or some Firefox add-ons for instance should cover that ground. ( Have you seen Clipmarks ? )
I think you and your gang might put a brainstorming party to good use.

Posted by: opit | Mar 25, 2007 8:42:17 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘