Steve Benen continues his instructive tracking of how the traditional media has covered legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, and particularly how the rulings are reported. He adds coverage of Friday's decision by the 11th circuit federal appeals court to
his compilation.
Washington Post
* 11th Circuit ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1059 words
* 6th Circuit ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A5, 1053 words
* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A2, 607 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page B5, 507 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1624 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1176 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): no article, zero words
New York Times
* 11th Circuit ruling (against the ACA): article on page A11, 615 words
* 6th Circuit ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A15, 853 words
* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A15, 416 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A24, 335 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1320 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1192 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A14, 488 words [...]
In this case, the New York Times broke the trend—its the only outlet of the four that didn't give yesterday's ruling more attention than the comparable 6th Circuit ruling from June. The Washington Post, meanwhile, continues to be the most one-sided—the three conservative rulings were all treated as front-page news, while the four rulings in support of the law were either buried or ignored.
Benen also looks at the coverage from AP and Politico which maintains this trend. As he says, this glaring disparity could be because reporters find more "news" in the status quo being upended rather than maintained. To WaPo's credit, as much as it pains me to write this, this is one time the ed board and Fred Hiatt do a much better job than the news side, explaining the elemental argument in support of the constitutionality of the mandate. (Before paying homage to David Broder with this: "One of the heartening aspects of Friday’s ruling, as with the 6th Circuit decision, was the ideologically mixed nature of the majority and dissent.")
But again, why does it matter how the media covers the story when the Supreme Court is going to end up deciding it anyway? It matters because, as Benen says "it seems very likely the public has been left with the impression that the health care law is legally dubious and struggling badly in the courts because that's what news organizations have told them to believe—rulings the right likes get trumpeted; rulings the left likes get downplayed." It contributes to a public sense that the most unpopular part of the law was a political overreach, and further undermines it. It adds to a political climate that could embolden governors and state legislatures that refuse to implement the law and keep Republicans in Congress wasting time on repeal or defunding efforts.
It also misses the glaring opportunity to put the politicization of the judiciary, the discussion of where the "activist" judges "legislating from the bench" really reside, on the front page. That's a disservice to us all.