This is better journalism than I have ever seen from Fox News. I still am concerned that only a small number of possibly effective ideas are being considered. The interview with Senator John Barrassso shows one reason choices are so limited; The Republican opposition fails to contribute good choices.
Opinion news story by Fox anchor Shepard Smith about recent developments in the health care debate. This short 5 minute video segment starts with a generally factual update, then goes on to accuse democrats of lowballing health care cost estimates. It then features an interview with Wyoming Republican senator John Barrasso, asking him how we can keep costs down without a public option. Given Fox's usual right-wing stance, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Smith rebuke Barrasso for presenting the public option as a government takeover. Still, this opinion news format only features a single source and lacks depth, making it a weak substitute for quality journalism on this complex issue.
While I usually find opinion news shows like this one counterproductive, I was impressed by Shepard Smith's open-minded approach towards the public option, even though that program is usually opposed by his colleagues on the Fox News network.
As health care costs have gone up, insurance industry profits have gone up 300% and the industry has contributed to politicians on both sides of the aisle. … We the ...
The Fox interviewer sets up the Republican senator who gives the Republican point of view. Many of his statements have been disproved. Many of the rest are misleading, While the interviewer makes a pretense of asking pointed questions, they only set up the one-sided answers. There are no meaningful followup questions. Factually incorrect answers are not challenged.
I don't know what Shepard is smoking to talk about the public option in a positive way. I've read a few things on other blogs about this. The Senator as usual, is spouting the same views as the party of NO!
The Interviewer was accurate but the Senator was way off on his costs and his suggestions to reduce costs.The first interviewer properly challenged him but he also allowed him a full reign of commonly used distortions of the truth without challenge point by poimt.The CBO came out and not only was the costs not near a trillion dollars as the Senator from Wyomong claimed it actually (over ten years) it came in well under the 900 billion and would also reduce the defict by 81 billion over the same ten year period.