Politicians' Health Problems Are Important Information For Voters — But Reporters And Candidates Often Conceal Them
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman’s hospitalization for depression has raised anew the question of how much health information a candidate or politician should reveal to the public.
Most people expect that their health is a private matter. And for a politician or office seeker, such disclosures can be used as political weapons by their opponents. But when someone voluntarily enters the sphere of public service and elective office, do they have an obligation to inform their constituents about how well they can actually execute the job they’re asking to be elected to?
Fetterman had a near-fatal stroke in May 2022. One reporter interviewed him during the 2022 Senate campaign and gave a firsthand account of how Fetterman seemed to have trouble coping with his post-stroke problems. She was attacked by other reporters for suggesting that he was struggling to have a basic conversation. Throughout the 2022 U.S. Senate campaign, Fetterman’s staff gave conflicting and confusing accounts of his health.
In any other job interview in the U.S., it would indeed be forbidden – from a social and legal perspective – to ask about the applicant’s health. And it does not serve the public interest to pry too much into politicians’ lives.
But candidates who won’t disclose their medical records can put the voters at a disadvantage. Before citizens cast their ballots they should know pertinent information about health problems. Just as voters should know a candidate’s positions on issues, voters should know about politicians’ ability to advocate for those positions and to fully represent their constituents.
As The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board wrote in October 2022, “It’s fair to question John Fetterman’s fitness after his stroke. Communication is part of being a senator. It’s perfectly reasonable for Pennsylvanians to ask about how well he is able to listen, speak, focus, and understand.”
There are consequences when politicians – and the media that cover them – aren’t transparent.
Precedent for secrecy
History is full of examples of the media covering up politicians’ medical problems. That, in turn, exacerbates a common perception that reporters are complicit with politicians in concealing important information from the public.
Traditionally, reporters hate cover-ups but seem to make an exception for health concerns. The media apparently consider it within the bounds of campaign job interviews to ask a politician whom he is having sex with, what type of underwear he wears, how many ex-girlfriends’ abortions he paid for and precisely how gay he is.
But reporters practically become snooty, high-brow puritans at the thought of asking a politician whether their health will allow them to show up to work.
Reporters in cahoots
Campaigns and sitting politicians notoriously dodge health questions, as I have documented in my research. Journalists long acted as co-conspirators in allowing politicians to deceive the public about their health.
For example, it had long been an open secret among Capitol Hill reporters that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, now 89 years old, has lost much of her mental sharpness and her memory. Sen. Strom Thurmond did not retire until he was 100 years old, and reporters largely kept his cognitive ailments hidden. Thurmond regularly asked people to repeat themselves, and often spoke in unintelligible sequences of words.
Experiments I have conducted that test the effects of a politician deceptively dodging questions indicate that evasion may backfire, causing voters to focus even more on what a candidate is hiding. Coming clean about health problems may actually bolster the public’s confidence more than claiming to have a clean bill of health and then being unable to do the job.
An extreme example of this problem is provided by serial liar Rep. George Santos. Unlike most politicians who lie about their health to sound as if they are impervious to maladies, the New York lawmaker took the opposite approach while campaigning for Congress. Santos listed all sorts of health problems he suffers from: acute chronic bronchitis, a brain tumor, an immunodeficiency, and susceptibility to cancer.
Most of Santos’ claims about his life other than his health have been fact-checked. After he was elected, the media thoroughly investigated and dispelled his claims ranging from saying he was Jewish to saying he had played college volleyball. But Santos’ statements about his own mental or physical abilities seem to have gone unquestioned. Santos was either lying or telling the truth about being unwell.
Either way, the public should have known.
Fit for office
When Fetterman had a stroke in the middle of the hotly contested Pennsylvania race for U.S. Senate, the media seemed to minimize it in their coverage. Vox called it an “asset” because he would bring more attention to disabilities in Congress, and Slate said the health struggle was beneficial in helping him raise campaign money. That soft-pedaling echoed the Fetterman campaign’s own tendency to hide details or release partial truths.
Strokes are common, though, and the public should be educated about them, not given the impression that a stroke is a rare and unmentionable event. Two other sitting U.S. senators had strokes in 2022. It would save lives if the public talked more, not less, about common health conditions such as strokes.
It’s also possible that by concealing a health condition from the public, the public – if and when it finds out – will get the message that the condition was hidden because it is a disabling one, when that may not actually be the case.
Fetterman’s current hospitalization at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is for depression, which his chief of staff said Fetterman has experienced “off and on throughout his life.” The announcement of his hospitalization sparked an outpouring of support from colleagues and others. A fellow Democrat, Rep. Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, called him “a courageous leader in sharing the circumstances of his hospitalization with the public.”
But because Fetterman did not reveal his full medical record during the campaign, voters were unaware of the condition that has now landed him in the hospital. Given the support shown after he checked into Walter Reed, it’s possible that revealing his depression would not have caused him a loss of voter support on Election Day.
Struggling with mental and physical ailments is part of the human condition. Someone who has depression can still be an effective legislator, but someone who needs to be hospitalized may be restricted from conducting essential functions of their work such as participating in committee hearings and voting on legislation.
It may be time to consider a political candidate’s health – their literal, physical fitness for the office – to be fair game for campaign disclosure. Asking politicians whether they have the ability to serve in office should not be off-limits, nor considered evidence of “ableism.”
If civil discussions of mental and physical health impairments can be held – rather than treated like stigmas that must be hidden – democracy would be healthier. Voters would have the facts they need to make well-informed decisions about who can best represent them, not just by sharing their views and values, but by actually performing the work associated with holding public office and serving their constituents.
David E. Clementson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Public Radio Can Help Solve The Local News Crisis — But That Would Require Expanding Staff And Coverage
Since 2005, more than 2,500 local newspapers, most of them weeklies, have closed, with more closures on the way.
Responses to the decline have ranged from luring billionaires to buy local dailies to encouraging digital startups. But the number of interested billionaires is limited, and many digital startups have struggled to generate the revenue and audience needed to survive.
The local news crisis is more than a problem of shuttered newsrooms and laid-off journalists. It’s also a democracy crisis. Communities that have lost their newspaper have seen a decline in voting rates, the sense of solidarity among community members, awareness of local affairs and government responsiveness.
Largely overlooked in the effort to save local news are the nation’s local public radio stations.
Among the reasons for that oversight is that radio operates in a crowded space. Unlike a local daily newspaper, which largely has the print market to itself, local public radio stations face competition from other stations. The widely held perception that public radio caters to the interests of people with higher income and education may also have kept it largely out of the conversation.
But as a scholar who studies media, I believe that local public radio should be part of the conversation about saving local news.
Advantages are trust, low cost and reach
There are reasons to believe that public radio can help fill the local news gap.
Trust in public broadcasting ranks above that of other major U.S. news outlets. Moreover, public radio production costs are relatively low – not as low as that of a digital startup, but far less than that of a newspaper or television station. And local public radio stations operate in every state and reach 98% of American homes, including those in news deserts – places that today no longer have a daily paper.
Finally, local public radio is no longer just radio. It has expanded into digital production and has the potential to expand further.
To assess local public radio’s potential for helping to fill the local information gap, I conducted an in-depth survey of National Public Radio’s 253 member stations.
The central finding of that study: Local public radio has a staffing problem. Stations have considerable potential but aren’t yet in a position to make it happen.
That’s not for lack of interest. Over 90% of the stations I surveyed said they want to play a larger role in meeting their community’s information needs. As one of our respondents said, “The need for the kind of journalism public media can provide grows more evident every day. The desire on the part of our newsrooms is strong.”
To take on a larger role, most stations would need to expand their undersized news staff.
Sixty percent of the local stations have 10 or fewer people on their news staff, and that’s by a generous definition of what constitutes staff. Respondents included in this count broadcast and digital reporters, editors, hosts, producers and others who contribute to local news and public affairs content in its various forms, as well as those who directly provide technical or other support to those staff members. In addition to full-time employees, stations were asked to include part-time employees and any students, interns or freelancers who contribute regularly.
The staffing problem is most acute in communities that have lost their newspaper or where local news gathering has been sharply cut back. Many of these communities were judged by the respondents to have a below-average income level, which limits the local station’s fundraising potential.
Although the staffing problem is more pronounced at stations in communities where local news is in short supply, staff size at nearly every station falls far short of even a moderate-sized daily newspaper.
The Des Moines Register, for example, has a daily circulation of 35,000 copies and a nearly 50-person newsroom – a staff larger than 95% of local public radio stations.
Limitations on potential
One consequence of the staffing problem is that local public radio is actually not all that “local.”
The survey found that in the 13-hour period from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, only about two hours of locally produced news programming was carried on the average station, some of it in the form of talk shows and some of it as repeat programming. For stations with a news staff of 10 or fewer people, the daily average of locally produced news – even when including repeat programming – is barely more than one hour.
This is only one indicator of the limitations of an undersized newsroom.
Stations with a news staff of 10 or fewer people, for example, were only half as likely as those with more than 20 to have a reporter routinely assigned to cover local government. Some stations are so short of staff that they do not do any original reporting, relying entirely on other outlets, such as the local newspaper, for the stories they air.
A small news staff also means it’s hard to create content for the web, as illustrated by stations’ websites. The stations with 10 or fewer people in their newsroom were only half as likely as those with a staff size of more than 10 to feature local news on their homepage. A local station’s website cannot become the “go-to” place for residents seeking local news on demand if the station fails to provide it.
The stakes for democracy
With more staff, local public radio stations could help fill the information gap created by the decline of local newspapers. They could afford to assign a reporter full time to cover local government bodies like city councils and school boards.
It would still be a challenge for stations in rural areas that include multiple communities, but that challenge is also one that newspapers in rural areas have always faced and have in the past found ways to manage.
With adequate staff, local stations could also make their programming truly “local,” which would broaden their audience appeal.
Programming created by NPR, PRX and other content providers accounts for much of the appeal of local stations. But it can be a handicap in areas where many potential listeners have values and interests that aren’t met by national programming and where the station offers little in the way of local coverage. As one respondent noted, stations must provide coverage “that reflects the entirety of their communities.”
How much new money would local stations require to expand their coverage? Based on our respondents’ estimates and a targeting of the funding for the communities most in need, roughly $150 million annually would be required.
Given that these communities tend also to be the ones in below-average income areas, the funding would have to come largely from outside sources. That won’t be easy, but it needs to get done. As the Knight Foundation’s Eric Newton noted, local news gives people the information they “need to run their communities and their lives.”
This story has been corrected to state the name of one of two content providers to public radio stations, PRX.
Thomas E. Patterson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Should The US Ban TikTok? Can It? A Cybersecurity Expert Explains The Risks The App Poses And The Challenges To Blocking It
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 23, 2023, amid a chorus of calls from members of Congress for the federal government to ban the Chinese-owned video social media app and reports that the Biden administration is pushing for the company’s sale.
The federal government, along with many state and foreign governments and some companies, has banned TikTok on work-provided phones. This type of ban can be effective for protecting data related to government work.
But a full ban of the app is another matter, which raises a number of questions: What data privacy risk does TikTok pose? What could the Chinese government do with data collected by the app? Is its content recommendation algorithm dangerous? And is it even possible to ban an app?
Vacuuming up data
As a cybersecurity researcher, I’ve noted that every few years a new mobile app that becomes popular raises issues of security, privacy and data access.
Apps collect data for several reasons. Sometimes the data is used to improve the app for users. However, most apps collect data that the companies use in part to fund their operations. This revenue typically comes from targeting users with ads based on the data they collect. The questions this use of data raises are: Does the app need all this data? What does it do with the data? And how does it protect the data from others?
If most apps collect data, why is the U.S. government worried about TikTok? First, they worry about the Chinese government accessing data from its 150 million users in the U.S. There is also a concern about the algorithms used by TikTok to show content.
Data in the Chinese government’s hands
If the data does end up in the hands of the Chinese government, the question is how could it use the data to its benefit. The government could share it with other companies in China to help them profit, which is no different than U.S. companies sharing marketing data. The Chinese government is known for playing the long game, and data is power, so if it is collecting data, it could take years to learn how it benefits China.
One potential threat is the Chinese government using the data to spy on people, particularly people who have access to valuable information. The Justice Department is investigating TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, for using the app to monitor U.S. journalists. The Chinese government has an extensive history of hacking U.S. government agencies and corporations, and much of that hacking has been facilitated by social engineering – the practice of using data about people to trick them into revealing more information.
The second issue that the U.S. government has raised is algorithm bias or algorithm manipulation. TikTok and most social media apps have algorithms designed to learn a user’s interests and then try to adjust the content so the user will continue to use the app. TikTok has not shared its algorithm, so it’s not clear how the app chooses a user’s content.
The algorithm could be biased in a way that influences a population to believe certain things. There are numerous allegations that TiKTok’s algorithm is biased and can reinforce negative thoughts among younger users, and be used to affect public opinion. It could be that the algorithm’s manipulative behavior is unintentional, but there is concern that the Chinese government has been using or could use the algorithm to influence people.
Can the government ban an app?
If the federal government comes to the conclusion that TikTok should be banned, is it even possible to ban it for all of its 150 million existing users? Any such ban would likely start with blocking the distribution of the app through Apple’s and Google’s app stores. This might keep many users off the platform, but there are other ways to download and install apps for people who are determined to use them.
A more drastic method would be to force Apple and Google to change their phones to prevent TikTok from running. While I’m not a lawyer, I think this effort would fail due to legal challenges, which include First Amendment concerns. The bottom line is that an absolute ban will be tough to enforce.
There are also questions about how effective a ban would be even if it were possible. By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means. So a ban might limit the damage going forward to some degree, but the Chinese government has already collected a significant amount of data. The Chinese government also has access – along with anyone else with money – to the large market for personal data, which fuels calls for stronger data privacy rules.
Are you at risk?
So as an average user, should you worry? Again, it is unclear what data ByteDance is collecting and if it can harm an individual. I believe the most significant risks are to people in power, whether it is political power or within a company. Their data and information could be used to gain access to other data or potentially compromise the organizations they are associated with.
The aspect of TikTok I find most concerning is the algorithm that decides what videos users see and how it can affect vulnerable groups, particularly young people. Independent of a ban, families should have conversions about TikTok and other social media platforms and how they can be detrimental to mental health. These conversations should focus on how to determine if the app is leading you down an unhealthy path.
This article has been updated to indicate that TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before Congress on March 23, 2023.
Doug Jacobson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In Congress, Breaking Unwritten Rules That Encouraged Civility And Enabled Things To Get Done Is Becoming The New Normal
When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ordered an investigation into the Manhattan district attorney’s ongoing criminal probe of former President Donald Trump, he broke with House practices and norms.
And the three committee chairmen McCarthy tasked with investigating may be stepping outside of federal jurisdiction by attempting to investigate a county prosecutor.
As a scholar of the legislative branch, I study how its practices and procedures have changed over time. This move is just one in a growing list of norm-breaking events that have colored how the House, during the 118th Congress, conducts business.
When McCarthy gave government-owned footage of the Jan. 6th insurrection to a single media outlet, he broke a long-standing congressional norm of releasing government information to media outlets broadly.
When multiple, unrepentent Republican representatives heckled Democratic President Joe Biden during his February 2023 State of the Union address, they broke behavioral norms for the occasion. The last person who heckled a sitting president during the State of the Union was Rep. Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, in 2009 when President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. Wilson apologized.
118th Congress broke norms from the start
Even before this session of Congress began in January 2023, Republicans members of the House broke a norm by forcing 15 ballots over four days before voting to make McCarthy speaker. The last Speaker vote that required multiple ballots was in 1923 when it took nine.
But when McCarthy denied seats on the House Intelligence Committee to Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff, who once chaired the committee, and Eric Swalwell, both of California, he went much further. Historically, both parties have tended to avoid politicizing national security. Removing members with the kind of institutional knowledge Schiff and Swalwell possess could have serious consequences for the effective operation of the committee.
The House also voted to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar, another Democrat, from the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee.
In the House, Republican and Democratic leadership are traditionally in control of which members they submit for committee assignments. Despite this norm, McCarthy refused to allow Schiff or Swalwell a seat on the Intelligence Committee after Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries put their names forward.
Accusing Reps. Swalwell and Schiff of misusing the panel during the previous two Congresses, McCarthy said he was denying the two representatives seats on the committee for national security reasons. And he forced a floor vote to oust Omar for her antisemitic comments, even though she apologized.
House Democrats maintain McCarthy’s move was political payback because the House, under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, had voted to remove Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar from their committees over incendiary comments the two made. Some of their remarks included threats of violence against members of the House.
That was not the first time Pelosi denied the Republican minority leader his choice of committee appointments. During the 117th Congress, when she and House Democratic leadership were populating the Jan. 6 committee to investigate the Capitol insurrection, McCarthy wanted to seat two known Trump loyalists: Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio. Pelosi rejected them.
When norms are ignored
Traditionally, if a member of Congress committed an offense that did not rise to the level of an ethics investigation, their leadership would decide how to punish them. That was the case in 2019, when then-Minority Leader McCarthy stripped now former Iowa Rep. Steven King of his committee assignments, citing King’s racist comments.
But McCarthy did not punish Greene – Pelosi did.
At the time, Republicans warned Pelosi she was setting a precedent – or new norm – of the majority party in the House determining committee assignments for the minority party.
“If this is the new standard, I look forward to continuing out the standard,” McCarthy said.
The norms of governance in the House provide stability and clarity regarding what type of behavior is and is not allowed among members. But when those norms are broken, a series of devolving consequences can follow.
Partisan fights pay
Republican members of Congress attacking Democrats and Democratic members of Congress attacking Republicans has long been a way for elected officials to grab voters’ attention. But the divisive rhetoric and deeply partisan behavior of officeholders over the past few decades has only pushed the two parties farther apart, particularly during the 2000s.
During that period, it became clear that politicians who whipped up their bases by using the politics of outrage could score political points and replenish their political coffers at the same time. That realization has changed the political calculus.
Today, donors reward shocking behavior. Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, for example, raised US$3 million after he voted to block the presidential election results on Jan. 6, 2021.
Greene raised $3.2 million after only three months in office when news broke that she embraced conspiracy theories and previously threatened violence against Democratic politicians. Perhaps seeking similar results, when McCarthy kicked Schiff off the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff went on TikTok to announce his candidacy for the Senate.
Whether this extreme behavior by elected officials is motivated by political one-upmanship or money, or both, Americans are watching, and many don’t approve of the behavior. A February Gallup Poll has approval of Congress hovering around 18%.
Sarah Burns receives funding from the Institute for Humane Studies and she is a non-resident fellow at The Quincy Institute.
Australian National Review – Every Christian In America Is A Target Now
Australian National Review – The Trump Campaign’s Collusion With Israel
Australian National Review – Governance By Artificial Intelligence:The Ultimate Unaccountable Tyranny: The Elites Will Present AI As The Great Adjudicator, The Pure And Logical Intercessor Of The Correct Path; Not Just For Nations And For Populations At Large But For Each Individual
International Blood Bank for the Unvaccinated has been Formed with Members from at Least 16 countries – Demand for “Pure Blood” Skyrockets
Life Force Network News English Transcript – White Paper Protests
Tesla Broke Labor Laws By Telling Workers Not To Discuss Pay, NLRB Claims
Health4 months ago
International Blood Bank for the Unvaccinated has been Formed with Members from at Least 16 countries – Demand for “Pure Blood” Skyrockets
English4 months ago
Life Force Network News English Transcript – White Paper Protests
Science and Tech3 months ago
Tesla Broke Labor Laws By Telling Workers Not To Discuss Pay, NLRB Claims
Life Force Original Content6 months ago
Speak Up News Part 2
English6 months ago
Life Force Network News English Transcript -UK False Data English Transcript
World News6 months ago
Australian National Review – McIntyre Report Political Talk Show- Episode 148, Elon Musk Now The Enemy Of Ukraine For Suggesting Peace,Australian PM Send $500 Million More To Nazis In Ukraine Without Voters Permission,Covid Vaccine Cover Up Failing,WW3 Being Pushed By Biden's Masters – Part 1
Life Force Now6 months ago
Life Force Network News-UK False Data
World News5 months ago
Australian National Review – McIntyre Report Political Talk Show- Episode 148, Elon Musk Now The Enemy Of Ukraine For Suggesting Peace,Australian PM Send $500 Million More To Nazis In Ukraine Without Voters Permission,Covid Vaccine Cover Up Failing,WW3 Being Pushed By Biden's Masters – Part 2