Blumenauer’s timeline detailing how one became the other — with the powerful helping hand of Sarah Palin– is fascinating in a number of regards, but specifically because Palin is once again about to be handed a very large microphone. Blumenauer notes that in the all-night health care bill mark-up session of July 16 that “nowhere was there a single proposal to change the end-of-life language, nor a word spoken in opposition. Not a single word.” Enter Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin, and a “vicious news cycle” where “lies take on lives of their own on Web sites, blogs and e-mail chains and go viral in seconds.” In this last regard Blumenauer had less than kind words for the MSM:

The news media was a particular culprit in this drama. This was not just Fox News; seemingly all the national news organizations monitored any meetings they could find between lawmakers and constituents, looking for flare-ups, for YouTube moments. The meetings that involved thoughtful exchanges or even support for the proposals would never find their way on air; coverage was given only to the most outrageous behavior, furthering distorting the true picture.
*
It didn’t matter. The “death panel” episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel.

The question remain whether the news media will be able to perform its “traditional role of reporting the facts” going forward — between Palin’s book and the health care bill/Stupak amendment making its way through the Senate it may be a challenge. When everyone in the media is struggling to stay afloat, the call of a splashy headline is sometimes hard to resist.

Related: BBC’s Rome Hartman is more optimistic and thinks the viewing public won’t be fooled again: “People are smart enough to know shamelessness when they see it.” But what if that’s all they see?

Dylan Ratigan is the host of MSNBC’s Morning Meeting which airs weekdays from 9 to 11amET. He went to MSNBC on the heels of a successful stint hosting Fast Money, the CNBC show he co-created in 2006. Since joining MSNBC in late June, Ratigan has made a bit of a stir with his quick-wit and sometimes confrontational style. His interview with Betsy McCaughey over the Health Care debate got a lot of attention for being “one of the most brow-beating interviews in history,” as McCaughey called it.

Ratigan’s show has a major “meeting” focus – when introducing guests, it’s not “welcome to the program,” or “welcome to the show,” it’s “welcome to the meeting.” And who was the featured guest of his first “meeting”?  None other than former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Here are our 5 Quick Questions for Dylan Ratigan:
1. How do you get your first news of the day?

My show is on pretty early and I’m not a morning person. So I typically get the first news of the day from the last three minutes of Morning Joe. Which is usually my pal Willie Geist talking about Rob Blagojevich and Sarah Palin.

2. Either, Or (you gotta pick one!):

Stock Exchange or stock cars?

You’ve obviously never watched me fight for real health care reform…I believe in more than limited choice for all Americans. That being said….I basically left a job that had me at the NY Stock Exchange and accumulated 11 speeding tickets in the past 3 years.

3. What’s the biggest story the media has missed this year? (Or last week):

This is as yet unconfirmed, but a military source told me on background that the US is bribing Afghanistan goat herders with Viagra. I hear this is a story that could get bigger….

4. Obligatory Twitter Question: Describe yourself in 140 characters or less (hash tag optional!).

A man on a mission. #DylanRatigan

5. Are you nervous or excited about the future of Journalism? Why?

Excited because I think the growing competition will ultimately give the American people the best information they’ve ever had.. Nervous because the only difference between me and a kid on Skype is a graphics package and peacock logo.

Joy Behar‘s show is new, and everyone needs the buzz, so there you have it: Orly Taitz was on Joy Behar last night, accusing President Barack Obama of “massive fraud” and waving around some highlighted binder like Betsy McCaughey about to sing Happy Birthday to the President. Apparently Taitz has a court date? In California? Questioning Obama’s birth? Because as an Israeli that makes perfect sense. Also, she’s a dentist.

Per Taitz: “This judge stated, this is a legitimate issue, and it’s important for the whole country, important for military.” Actually, California Judge David O. Carter set a tentative court date before ruling on a motion to dismiss. Taitz and co-complainant Gary Kreep (seriously) have yet to even prove that Judge Carter has jurisdiction to hear the case. Carter also admonished them to stop having their supporters call him to leave crazy messages: “You should know I’m not accepting those phone calls. They’re going to an answering machine and a secretary is deleting them,” Carter said.

Meanwhile, Taitz was fined $20,000 yesterday by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land for filing “frivolous” lawsuits. So those legal chances are looking good.

It’s a nice, long clip — great facetime for Taitz — but Behar does a nice job of being the reasonable foil, offering facts and logic and then sitting back and letting Taitz’s crazy do the talking. Do we need more Orly Taitz on the airwaves? Should Behar be giving this loopy-loon a platform? Will Lou Dobbs take this as a sign that he can have her on, too? Who knows — it’s cable, and this is good TV. You can’t tear your eyes away from Orly Taitz. Which is why we all know her name, despite the ludicrousness of her claim.

Also on Joy Behar last night — Lynda Carter (Wonder Woman! Also, presumably no relation to Judge David O. Carter) and Alicia Silverstone, who taught me that the word “diet” actually means “daily journey.” Hm.

But one thing they didn’t factor in – host Dylan Ratigan. Weiner was left in the dust while Ratigan and McCaughey went at it for more than 12 minutes.

Ratigan hammered away at McCaughey for what he perceived as non-answers on her part. At one point around the midway mark she said, “You’re not a very fair moderator, you know.” Ratigan’s response: “You’re not a very fair answerer. So there you go. Okay? Takes one to know one.”

You just don’t get that kind of exchange on most cable news programs. There was also this:

McCaughey: You’re not behaving like a moderator. You’re behaving like a partisan.
Ratigan: I’m behaving like somebody not getting an answer to his question.
M: You haven’t given me a chance.
R: I’m all ears.
M: That’s right. Now you are all ears. Let me explain that current bills in congress not only…
R: You’re not answering my question!
M: I haven’t finished one sentence.

And so on. McCaughey summed up her thoughts with about two minutes to go. “This will go down in history as one of the most browbeating interviews in television history,” she said.

“I hope that it does, and maybe you’ll learn at that point then to answer questions as opposed to going on television and cast accusations,” responded Ratigan.

The very end, which is where Weiner begins to get into his side of the argument (at one point he can be seen sitting with his head resting on his hands, watching the duel unfold), focuses about math and years and specifics. Still, the debaters got some fireworks going as well.

When it comes time for Ratigan’s next on-air review, we’d imagine this interview will be cited. Still, Ratigan’s quest for answers made for some good television.

Here’s the full, nearly 14-minute debate/’browbeating interview’, but the real fun kicks off around the 7:00 mark:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

It’s a depressing read though: As you go through it, myth by myth, the distortions are clear and incredibly frustrating to see. (They also come almost exclusively from Fox, which by no means is the only place spreading misinformation but, from this document, certainly seems to do so reliably!) Here’s an example:

MYTH 9: Obama said he didn’t read House bill

CLAIM: Obama “admitted” that he has not read the House health care reform bill.

• Limbaugh asserted that Obama “doesn’t know what’s in the bill! He admits he doesn’t know.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/21/09]

• “Obama Admits He’s ‘Not Familiar’ With House Bill” [Heritage Foundation, 7/21/09]

• HANNITY: “The president even admitted before the press conference — the day before — he hadn’t read the bill.” [Hannity, 7/24/09]

REALITY: Obama actually said he was “not familiar” with opponents’ false talking point that bill would ban private individual insurance. During a July 20 conference call, a blogger asked Obama to comment on the claim made in the July 15 IBD editorial — which is false — that the bill, in the blogger’s words, “will make individual private medical insurance illegal.” Obama responded, “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you’re talking about.”

“Sheesh” does not seem even close to strong enough here. More like bonking your head repeatedly against a wall, hard.

Look at how much effort has been expended by Media Matters in doing this. As the misinformation spreads, energy and resources must be redirected in addressing and debunking – and hoping that the fact-check gets spread around as widely as the initial false claim. I alluded to this in my own piece about Betsy McCaughey – Myths #3 and #13! -  that rumor containment will always be forever lagging behind those bent on spreading it, but seeing it laid out neatly and plainly here really shows just how true that is. De-pressing.

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform [Media Matters]
Who’s To Blame For The “Death Panel” Rumors? Betsy McCaughey, Again [Mediaite]
Newt Gingrich, Health Insurance Shill, Objectively Debates Health Care [Mediaite]

Stewart welcomed her politely, as he does all his guests, and then just let her dig her hole: He understands that you can be polite and still call someone out baldly on their naked misrepresentation of fact. McCaughey walked on set all smiles with a giant binder containing the legislation, and proceeded to refer to it knowledgeably as though that would be enough to convince Stewart that her fanciful interpretation of it was correct. It was not: He called her on her “hyberbolic” statements and noted bluntly where she made leaps of logic unsupported by fact.

See, for example, where McCaughey lamented that it would be “really wrong” if the old people had their living wills yanked out from under them. Said Stewart: “It would be really wrong if this was in any way what this says. But that is not in any way what this says.” In a beautiful power move, he pulled the paper from the binder: “Let me take this out because you clearly don’t need it. Look: ‘Such measures shall measure both the creation and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.’ Life-sustaining.”

The whole thing reminded me of The Princess Bride where Vizzinni keeps on saying “inconceivable” and Inigo says, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Part 1 and 2 of the unedited interview below. They are not only worth watching, they are mandatory viewing.

Betsy MCaughey Extended Interview – Part I:

Betsy MCaughey Extended Interview – Part II:

Specter’s target: Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who has emerged as a voice promoting the “death panel” myth. Grassley told an audience in Iowa that they had “every right to fear” and that the country “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.” Specter was having none of it, and told Twitter he called Grassley to make him stop:

Turns out what Specter really meant is that he left a voicemail:

But still! The punch was thrown. And if you know Chuck Grassley on Twitter, you know he’s not one to back away from a fight:

Not even the liberal press! Look who sounds a little bit like Sarah Palin after all. Actually, this is a neat lesson in semantics: Specter’s tweet clearly put “death panels” in quotes, but the focus was the myths, which he did, indeed, spread (“pull the plug on grandma“, anyone?). The phrase “Death Panels” as introduced by Sarah Palin — she keeps on giving! — has been the buzzphrase used to promote the idea. And boy, has it worked.

So what’s wrong with Specter trying to correct the record via Twitter? Nothing, actually, in light of the myths being spread. Alas, Grassley’s offense-as-defense tactic appears to have worked: Specter later toned down his Twittatude and slunk back to the empty promises for political discourse that we’re used to:

We definitely tip our hat to Specter for having the swagger to call Grassley out on Twitter — very Lance Armstrong of him! — though given it’s limitations, Twitter might not the best place for a productive dialogue on complex subjects. But where is these days.

Related:
Specter And Grassley Tweet Tough On Death Panels [NPR Health Blog]
Republican Death Trip [NYT]
Who’s To Blame For The “Death Panel” Rumors? Betsy McCaughey, Again [Mediaite]

Who is Betsy McCaughey? Fallows explains:

In the early 1990s McCaughey single-handedly did a phenomenal amount to distort discussion of health-care policy and derail the Clinton health bill. She did so through an entirely fictitious argument about what the bill would do. You can go back in the records here, here, and here, but the issue boils down to this: She claimed that the bill would make it illegal to go outside the government plan for coverage or pay doctors on your own. If a doctor took money for such outside-the-system services, she said, that doctor could go to jail. That was a flat-out lie.

…McCaughey has been at it again this year — twice, in fact. First was with an early, equally false claim that to compile “comparative effectiveness” data about medical care — which drugs had which effects, which surgical procedures led to which results, the sort of data collected routinely about education, air safety, and everything else — would lead to a Big Brotherish intrusion on individual medical decisions. That one seemed to get knocked out of contention fairly early. Then she was back with the “death panels” argument.

The New York Times today traces how McCaughey’s claim has been picked up by the conservative media:

But Ms. McCaughey’s article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. “Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey, Grandpa, you’ve had a good life,’ ” Mr. Beck said.

Fallows says he can’t believe that this time around, the modern media, with its millions of Internet fact-checkers now built into the process, wasn’t immune to this kind of rumormongering. Well, it’s not because they weren’t warned: On July 29th, Greg Sargent‘s Plumline carried this headline: Figure Who Helped Kill Health Care With Distortions Last Time Rides Again (I just saw this via Andrew Sullivan, whom I checked as soon as I made the McCaughey-New Republic connection. Alas, he has not weighed in on this just yet. Hmm.) On July 31, Salon’s Joe Conason wrote “Will Bill and Betsy Kill Again?“, incredulous: “Knowing what we have since learned about him and her, it is hard to believe that anyone believes anything they say. But once again it is their words — brimming with falsehood, stupidity and possibly both — that inspire the opposition and confuse the public.”

It’s not that the fact-checking isn’t there – Conason traces the McCaughey ‘end-of-life counseling’ rumor back to mid-July on Fred Thompson’s radio show, saying “the healthcare reform bill would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” Conason points out that Politifact.com debunked this as a “ridiculous falsehood.”

But debunking takes time and effort, especially when rumours spread.  Wednesday, Time’s Michael Scherer pointed to how McCaughey’s fallacious New York Post column attacking Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm, as a “deadly doctor” had spread like wildfire, catching him off-guard. Guess who wrote the column? Look no further than the smiling blonde above.

Paul Krugman’s column today, “Republican Death Trip,” doesn’t even mention McCaughey — it’s about Chuck Grassley‘s role, which he calls “flat-out despicable.” But the hand of McCaughey is behind Grassley, too (no matter how much he may claim that he’s “no nail“):

The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.

It also may be worse because this message machine has so many more amplifiers: Blogs and Twitter and YouTube and Drudge and HuffPo and 24-hour cable news shows who shout first and fact-check later. It’s a multi-media many-headed Hydra, and as anyone who knows a little mythology (or has read Agatha Christie!) knows, it’s bloody impossible to contain because as soon as you cut off one head, up spring two more.  That’s how it is with debunking these rumors: They are carelessly thrown out, exaggerated and amplified, and why not? It’s the other side that wil have to go through the laborious process of fact-checking and proving why they’re wrong, using up precious time and labor to do so.  Do you think all the people who watched Glenn Beck’s crazy eugenics segment instantly rushed to their computers to fact-check him? Er, not quite. Probably more than a few of them rushed to make hand-held signs that they could then wave angrily at a town hall. For the TV cameras.

So: Now what? The New Y ork Times is (now) on the case – will that make the Washington Times recant? Stop publishing McCaughey? We all know the answer: It won’t. Which is too bad, because anyone who knows a little mythology knows, too, that that’s the only way to stop it. The next best thing may just be to keep vigilant eye out at all time, and never to assume fact-checking is the end of it. It should be, but as long as the world prefers many shouting Hydra heads to a smoldering dead one, the second side will always have to shout back, belatedly. No Exit, indeed.

I Was Wrong [James Fallows - The Atlantic]
Will Bill and Betsy Kill Again? [Salon]
Figure Who Helped Kill Health Care With Distortions Last Time Rides Again [The Plumline]
False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots [New York Times]
Republican Death Trip [New York Times]
Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s ‘Deadly Doctor,’ Strikes Back [Time]

Related in depressing posts from back in February:
Let’s Stop This Before It Goes Any Further [Jim Fallows - The Atlantic]