Manjoo: Obama should ignore "death panels"

Slate's Farhad Manjoo has written a provocative new article arguing that the Obama administration won't be able to knock down the "death panel" myth and should stop talking about it entirely:

[H]e's going after folks in the middle—people who've heard about the death panels but aren't sure what to believe. Will his defense work on those people? Perhaps a few of them. He'll probably convince some Americans that death panels are a myth—but at the same time, Obama's very public refutation of the story is bound to raise its profile. Death panels have now become front-page news... And as several studies in psychology have shown, people often mistake familiarity for veracity. That's why fighting a rumor can sometimes backfire: If we hear something often enough—even if it's in the context of a refutation—we're likely to think it's true.

That's the dilemma Obama faces in trying to debunk the lies surrounding the health care debate. In True Enough, my book published last year, I argued that despite techno-utopians' many high hopes, modern communications technology—talk radio, cable TV, and the Web—have fractured society along ideological lines. Because we can now get our news from sources that reflect our political views—and we can avoid sources that we find suspect—lies and misinformation tend to proliferate and linger. I examined several case studies—the Swift Boaters, the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, and claims that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election—and concluded that it's now easier than ever before for people to live in worlds built entirely of their own facts. We're becoming impervious to rational opposition. Once a substantial minority of the population believes a lie, it achieves the sheen of truth and becomes nearly impossible to debunk.

Now we're seeing that dynamic play out in the health care debate: Myths have taken root, and the White House is having lots of trouble fighting them. Over the last couple of weeks, the administration has tried various efforts to stem the spread of misinformation. It has made videos, sent e-mails, had its spokespeople go on TV, and asked supporters to report "fishy" claims. Now Obama himself is on the stump calling out the lies. Nothing has worked. During the last few years, I've spoken to many experts on the proliferation of rumors. Based on those conversations, I've got some simple advice for Obama: Shut up about the death panels already. Don't keep fighting this rumor. You've lost—and the more time you spend trying to make things better, the worse off you'll be.

Manjoo knows what he's talking about -- True Enough is an excellent primer on the ways in which people resist unwelcome information and the consequences of that resistance for contemporary politics. There's certainly a very good argument that the administration's efforts to correct potent misperceptions like the "death panel" are doomed to failure. And Manjoo is correct that the administration's correction strategy is increasing the salience of the myth, which creates the potential for making the situation worse.

With that said, though, I wouldn't argue that the White House should "shut up" entirely and let these myths circulate unchallenged. A passive response by Obama could encourage administration opponents to promote new misinformation and start the cycle anew. By contrast, I'm hopeful that the elite-based name and shame strategy that I've advocated (see here and here) could potentially reduce the incentives for these sorts of campaigns.

(Disclosure: Manjoo cites my research with Jason Reifler [PDF] on the difficulty of correcting misperceptions.)

Comments

[David]

Perhaps the dog food parable helps explain why the President's health reform isn't selling:

A large multinational dog food company decided to come out with the latest and greatest dog food. They had their research scientists design the most nutritious combination of ingredients, containing all the essential vitamins and amino acids required by dogs. They had the marketing department put together a most colorful advertisement and a catchy jingo was thought up for their TV commercial. And they spent gobs of money on TV advertising and splashy full page magazine ads. The engineers designed equipment to make this dog food in the most efficient manner, and the packaging department designed a beautiful box for it. The sales force was trained, and every supermarket chain had shelf space devoted to the dog food.
It did not sell.

So the company CEO gathered his top executives together to have a meeting to discover why. He asked each department "Why isn't our dog food selling?" The research department said there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with their formulation. Marketing was completely stumped. The sales force was mystified. No one had a clue as to what was wrong. Finally, after a long pause, a new employee sitting in the back of the room finally got the courage to say "But the dogs don't like it!"

I think the Amercan public doesn't want a radical restructuring of their health care system. Why should they? Surveys show that Americans are largely satisfied with their own health care.

I agree with Brendan and Manjoo that the death panels are a silly way to attack health care reform. However, I don't think the President's "marketing" problem can be solved by answering the death panel objection, because the public's real objection is to the "product" itself.

[Shinobi]

Did you see the most recent e-mail sent by David Axelrod? They did a "myth debunking" section and in some of the points they actually proactively stated the opposite of the myth instead of just repeating it and sayinG THIS IS FALSE. (They do repeat it though, see below)

Anyway I wondered if someone had been doing some research hehe.

# Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
# Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
# Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
# You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
# No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

[Howard Craft]

Most polls point out that a large majority (about 70%) do favor a radical restructuring of the health care system. For these reasons -

1) people recognize that a large percentage of the population has no insurance coverage and lacks preventative or basic wellness care (the ability to have an annual check-up, for example)

2) costs are very high and are have increased at over double the rate of inflation annually for the past two decades

3) health care outcomes are average (or below average) compared to other industrialized nations

So people are concerned about access, affordability and overall quality.

But in terms of saying that they receive quality care, most people can say that they do. Its just the access, the cost and the overall results they are not happy with.

[David]

Howard Craft, people may be disasatified with access, costs and overall results, but they think Obamacare will be worse:

NYT/CBS Poll: 69% believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/08/19/nytcbs-poll-69-believe-obamacare-will-hurt-the-quality-of-their-own-health-care/

[Howard Craft]

Did they say it would be "worse", or just that they were concerned with a possible impact on quality?

The poll still shows a large majority in favor of significant change. BTW, it also shows that there is a belief that the Democrats (or Obama) have a batter plan than anyone else.

The article you referenced is very selective in the responses it highlighted.

I would take it as a nice example of the tendency to seek out "hypothesis-confirming evidence".

[David]

In answer to your question, Howard, I followed the links and discovered

* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.

* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.

* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors.

* Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them.

* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.