(Controversialize.)
At almost eleven that night, Hoffman fires off an angry, accusatory email to me out of the blue.
“Why did you refuse to tell us that Chairman Issa provided you with [Fryer] transcript excerpts—was that a condition of his leak to you?”
The outrage seems conspicuously manufactured, written for her third-party audience, whoever it may be. Her question is loaded with incorrect assumptions, such as that “Issa provided [me] with transcript excerpts.” And only those trying to hide public information would think of its release as a “leak,” as if it’s to be frowned upon and discouraged. A better question might be why Hoffman’s team or the administration didn’t release all of this information themselves, especially considering that it’s covered under Freedom of Information Act requests I filed weeks ago.
More important, Hoffman doesn’t seem to understand that I’m not obligated to report to her or anyone in the government. It’s the other way around.
I reply, “I think you have it a bit backwards.”
I know they’re setting in motion their next step.
Some media outlets that were disinterested in the potential security threat to millions of Americans now eagerly comply with the Democrats’ prompt to report about the reporting of the story.
A reporter from one Internet news organization calls the CBS press office. He says that Representative Cummings is saying that I didn’t give him a fair chance to respond to my story and this reporter wonders if I have a comment. I flash off a quick background note to my press office that shows we asked Cummings and his staff and other Democrats on Oversight for on-camera interviews and comments over and over but none were provided prior to publication. One CBS manager comments to me, “[T]he only thing more ridiculous than Cummings’s claim is that [another news organization] is calling our press office to ask about it.”
Before long, a predictable string of “articles” begins to appear, all designed to controversialize the reporting and distract from the facts. A colleague sends me one such article published in the Los Angeles Times. The article is an opinion piece by a writer named Michael Hiltzik. It appears in the newspaper’s business section and, surprisingly, is not labeled as an opinion piece.
Hiltzik echoes the Democrats’ spin, complete with incorrect assumptions, misleading material, and fact errors. He also adheres to the strategy of trying to make the story be about Issa. Though the damaging testimony and documents actually originated within the Obama administration, Democrats portray it as having come from Issa and, therefore, not to be believed.
Hiltzik’s obviously one-sided blog isn’t likely to change any minds. These overt propaganda efforts, employed by both Democrats and Republicans at times, are simply preaching to the choir. Yet there must be some sort of cumulative advantage to getting the articles into the public domain or else they wouldn’t bother. Maybe it’s as simple as arranging to have these favorable blogs return prominently high in Internet searches to overshadow, counter, or confuse the real news.
It’s easy to see why Democrats focus so much effort on controversializing Issa: it’s because of the committee he leads. Oversight is among the most powerful and effective watchdogs in Congress. Whether it’s led by Democrats or Republicans, it boasts some of the best staff on the Hill. In my experience, Oversight’s seasoned investigators have been thorough, careful, and accurate in how they’ve portrayed information to me over the years. They dig into hot-button issues and aren’t afraid to use subpoena power to get documents that might otherwise languish indefinitely at the other end of an unanswered Freedom of Information Act request.
So if the administration can convince the media and the public to dismiss everything from Oversight out of hand, because “it came from Issa,” they’ll have eliminated one of the few serious threats to their agenda. That’s what they’re trying for.
A choice example of the formidable threat Oversight poses is a letter that Issa dispatches to Secretary Sebelius on January 8, 2014. His investigators have compiled her allegedly false or misleading testimony.
First, on October 30, 2013, Sebelius told House Energy and Commerce that MITRE, the contractor hired to conduct security assessments, was performing “ongoing” tests for extra assurances. In fact, the committee says, MITRE’s pre-launch security testing ended September 20, 2013.
Second, Sebelius testified that MITRE “did not raise flags about going ahead.” But the committee points out that MITRE actually raised such serious issues that Fryer, CMS’s top cybersecurity expert, didn’t think the website should launch.
Third, Sebelius told Senate Finance on November 6, 2013, that “no one . . . suggested that the risks outweighed the importance of moving forward.” Actually, Fryer says she did just that.
And fourth, Sebelius said MITRE “made recommendations to CMS, as is required” and did not suggest delaying the rollout. But MITRE told the committee that it was “not informed, nor asked, by CMS about a ‘go-ahead for HealthCare.gov.’ ”
There are many more misrepresentations that could be added. HHS spokeswoman Peters falsely claiming that nobody from HHS was present for the congressional interview with Fryer. (A high-level HHS specialist was there.) Chao claiming he didn’t brief anybody at the White House prior to the launch. (He’d spoken to the White House’s Todd Park.) Administration officials insisting no enrollment figures existed. (They were collected from day one.) White House spokesman Carney promising worker insurance would be unaffected. (The administration’s own calculus predicted 14 million workers would lose insurance.) CMS head Tavenner stating under oath that there were no volume issues revealed in testing prior to launch. (Her agency’s internal tests showed the website repeatedly failed with just a few hundred users.)
In a different environment, all of these things might be exposed and examined and analyzed on the news. Public officials might be held accountable for mistakes and misstatements. They might be pressured to turn over public documents that they’re hiding. We might learn more about the true reasons why things went wrong, how to fix them, and how to avoid the same mistakes next time. Maybe we’d be able to avoid future waste of tax dollars.
And in a neutral news environment, it might be time to ask whether Obamacare has, for all intents and purposes, collapsed. With the multiple delays, a poor risk pool, millions booted off their existing plans, employers canceling insurance, employees dropping out of the workforce—the Affordable Care Act is barely a shadow of its grand vision.
But, like I said, the news decision makers appear to have lost all interest in these sorts of things in late November.
So viewers don’t hear much about it when, on January 23, 2014, the credit rating agency Moody’s downgrades the outlook for health insurers from stable to negative, naming the Affordable Care Act’s many problems as a significant factor. There’s little more than a passing reference on February 10, 2014, when the administration announces yet another year’s delay in implementation of rules for certain employers—until 2016. Most people don’t hear meaningful debate over the president picking and choosing how to implement pieces of the law, a practice that some claim to be illegal. Most of the news media don’t examine the trend of Democrats who are up for reelection in challenging races distancing themselves from the Affordable Care Act. There aren’t prominent reports fleshing out the debate over whether delays in implementation should also be extended to individuals, not just businesses. There are no high-profile stories providing smart financial analyses with revised estimates of costs, including new taxes and fees, versus benefits. And the continuing difficulties with many Obamacare recipients failing to receive proof of their insurance, patients having to switch doctors, insurers failing to get paid, and other problems may as well be nonexistent.
Replacing what should be critical analysis is the media’s tendency to adapt the government’s propaganda, or at least allow it to sway us from conducting meaningful ov
ersight. HHS holds conference calls during which officials take reporters’ questions, but consistently give pat nonresponses to queries they don’t wish to answer. We note this trend but don’t launch objections: we just complain to each other and continue to take part in the dog and pony show, gaining no real information other than what they wish to spoon-feed us.
The White House holds daily press calls featuring success stories and asks Democrats in Congress to circulate success stories gathered by their offices as well as coalition groups. The administration makes use of opinion pieces, blogs, and social media. A favorite go-to remains the Los Angeles Times’ Hiltzik, who continues to publish his opinion articles in the business section, so closely in synch with the White House’s own messaging, so utterly in line with the administration’s agenda, attacking its enemies, pushing its self-proclaimed achievements, they seem one and the same. There are new websites, a page on the Department of Health and Human Services website, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages featuring “ACA Success Stories.”
In mid-February 2014, the government releases new enrollment totals for January and the spin couldn’t be more positive. Record enrollment! Three point three million! Goals met! Young, healthy desirables signing up in great waves! The rainbow has emerged after the storm. The gray, stormy skies are gone.
Of course, considering the track record of misinformation, on this story in particular, journalists should know they must treat the government’s report like the press release that it is, and dig into the statistics with other experts to see if there are opposing viewpoints or alternate analyses.
Strangely, many reporters don’t do this. They unquestioningly accept and report the government’s spin, just as it’s presented in its press release, as if it’s undisputed fact.
But perhaps the greatest PR coup of all is that the administration’s expert spinners successfully lead the media by the nose down the path of concluding there’s no true controversy unless there’s a paper trail that lays blame directly on the president’s desk. Time and again, with each scandal and each new damaging fact, Democrats and the White House read from the script that says, “there’s no evidence President Obama knew” or “there’s no evidence of direct White House involvement.” Anything short of a signed confession from the president himself is deemed a phony Republican scandal, and those who dare to ask questions are crazies, partisans, or conspiracy theorists. The press fails to independently step back and note that those implicated are Obama administration people, sometimes top handpicked officials. A headline that might read, “Administration officials hid HealthCare.gov’s pitfalls . . .” instead might read, “No evidence Obama knew . . .”
Substitution Game: If past presidents had received similar treatment, the headline for Hurricane Katrina in 2005 might have read, “No evidence Bush had direct involvement in botched Katrina response” instead of “The botching of hurricane relief will affect Bush’s legacy” (U.S. News and World Report)
Under President Obama, the press dutifully regurgitates the line “no evidence of White House involvement,” ignoring the fact that if any proof exists, it would be difficult to come by under an administration that fails to properly respond to Freedom of Information document requests, routinely withholds documents from Congress, and claims executive privilege to keep documents secret.
Even accepting the most generous interpretation, many in the media fail to see news: the White House claims to be in the dark about massive mismanagement or wrongdoing by its own federal officials and agencies; about Obama’s HHS secretary, Sebelius, overseeing the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov; about his energy secretary, Chu, overseeing billions in poor investments of green energy tax dollars; about the controversial surveillance of citizens and the press; about a massive cross-border gunwalking operation; about misuse of IRS authority; about an incorrect narrative on Benghazi; about Obama’s State Department under Clinton denying security requests for Benghazi; about his director of national intelligence, Clapper, giving incorrect testimony to Congress; about his Justice Department under Attorney General Holder providing false information to Congress.
FEB. 13, 2014
CBS THIS MORNING
This morning, a milestone for the government health insurance marketplaces: they’ve finally met their monthly enrollment targets. The Obama administration reports 1.1 million people signed up for insurance in federal and state programs in January. Since they opened in October, nearly 3.3 million have signed up for coverage. There’s also a surge in the number of young people enrolling, those 18–34 years old now make up 25% of the applicants.
It turns out there’s much more to the story if one bothers to scratch beyond the surface. Out of curiosity, knowing there will be no interest in a broadcast report containing a critical analysis, I’ve nonetheless reached out to several experts who have proven to be uncannily accurate on this topic thus far. One of them is insurance industry representative Robert Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates. Another is an insider source who’s a great barometer, beyond his verity, because he’s a stalwart Obamacare supporter: he’s not skewing his analyses to undercut the initiative. Both men provide nearly identical evaluations that are polar opposites of the government’s.
“They made a big deal about the age results,” says Laszewski. “But the greater challenge for them is the low number of people enrolling. There is no way you can get a good spread of risk with such a small percentage of the total eligible signing up.”
The insider tells me that the bump of young enrollees in January to 27 percent is “progress,” but added that government officials “neglect to point out that they need roughly forty percent to help achieve a balanced risk pool” necessary under a successful business model.
Both sources unequivocally state that, far from being an encouraging number, 3.3 million people is a small proportion of the population that “should be” interested in signing up. And that the true number is even lower because the government is counting 20 percent of enrollees who haven’t paid, and because two-thirds of the enrollees were already insured prior to Obamacare so shouldn’t be counted as previously uninsured.
“Looking at the total of 3.3 million, netting out the non-pays, and listening to the anecdotal carrier reports, it doesn’t look like we have more than a fraction—certainly something less than ten percent—of the previously uninsured,” said Laszewski.
To me, this is a headline—and an important one. I write up the story for the CBS News website.
Less than two months later, in April 2014, President Obama claims wild success with “marketplace” or “exchange” enrollment at 8 million customers, beyond all expectations. Most in the media accept the selectively released statistic without pressing for basic evidence to back it up. Having recently separated from CBS, I conduct an independent review using the government’s own projections and statistics, industry surveys, and expert sources. Out of 38 million eligible Americans, only an estimated 3.4 million previously uninsured had been picked up through the insurance exchanges. One supporter involved in implementing Obamacare called the results extremely disappointing.
So many conflicting accounts. In so little time. But the biggest of all is owned by the president.
On December 12, 2013, the fact-check site PolitiFact.com dubs the president’s pledge, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the “2013 Lie of the Year.”
CHAPTER 6
| I Spy |
The Government’s Secrets
On January 8, 2013, I’m on my way to meet the contact who will be part of the process that gets my computer analyzed by a confidential source inside the government. I refer to my direct contact as “Number One.” He’s suggested a rendezvous at a McDonald’s in Northern Virginia. When I enter with my laptop tucked under one arm, I scan the patrons and correctly guess which one is my guy. I slip into his booth and we shake hands across the table. No need for formal
introductions. After a little small talk, he addresses the issue at hand. He’s a matter-of-fact kind of guy.
“I’ll tell you one thing. People would be shocked to know what this administration is doing in terms of spying on the American public.” That’s uncannily close to what Jeff had said to me just a few weeks before. And the two men don’t know each other. But both are connected to government three-letter agencies.
Number One explains his arrangements to have my computer analyzed. What I’ll receive is a verbal report. Because of who’s helping me, I won’t get an official written report. I understand the terms.
The next day, I’m working at my desk at CBS News when my mobile phone rings. It’s Number One.
“I thought I’d give you an update,” he says. “Our friend started looking at the product. He’s not finished yet but it’s proving very . . . interesting.”
He stops.
“Did he find something?” I ask, filling the silence.
“Yes. It’s positive.”
Positive. For what? Positive that nothing is wrong? Positive for some sort of spyware?
“Really?” I say.
“Yeah,” Number One continues. “I wouldn’t have believed it. It’s pretty shocking. We’re all kind of in a state of shock right now. I don’t want to say too much on the phone. In fact, I’d advise you to start using a burner phone. Do you know what that is?”
I do. The kind of phone that drug dealers and terrorists use so they can’t easily be followed. He says I should use burner phones and switch them out frequently. At least every month. And don’t use them from my house.
“I’ll be able to give you more information tomorrow,” he says.
We meet at the same place. We settle into a McDonald’s booth and look around. For what, I don’t know, but we look. Number One hands me my laptop and a piece of paper containing some typed notes. For both of us, our worldview has changed just a little.
Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington Page 28
