Prime Time TV is rapidly becoming much older. Compare these numbers, using this data:
ABC
2003 – 44 years 2007 – 48 years 2008 – 50 years
NBC
2003 – 46 years 2007 – 49 years 2008 – 49 years
CBS
2003 – 52 years 2007 – 53 years 2008 – 54 years
Fox (broadcast)
2003 – 35 years 2007 – 42 years 2008 – 44 years
Both Fox and ABC have shown a very large increase in the age of their audiences. Fox has gone up 9 years in the last 5. This means that not only is its audience getting older but it is actually losing younger viewers
And Fox is helped by two of its primetime shows that have a median age of 29.
But cable channels have even an older audience. FOX News channel has a median age over 65! It skews 30 years older than the entire population and 15 years older than broadcast channels.
TV of all kinds is going to have a real problem if it cannot bring its demographics much closer to the actually numbers found in America. It becomes more and more of an echo chamber, speaking to a smaller and smaller group, with little relevance to most of America.
Last September, Barack Obama voted to condemn the “Betray Us” attack on General David Petraeus, but over the past few days, FOX News hosts have repeatedly made the exact opposite claim.
Just a few years ago, FOX was able to get an appellate court in Florida to agree with it that there is no law against falsification of a news report, that they could tell lies and there was not anything the FCC could do about it.
A news outlet can knowingly lie and the FCC can not stop it. How does that make you feel about TV news?
Here are some facts. Compare them with the video and you tell me if FOX is still lying, still misleading, still bending if not breaking the truth.
On September 20, 2007, there was an amendment submitted in the Senate that had this purpose:
To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
To be even clearer, here is the actual text (bolding mine):
SA 2947. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC.X–SENSE OF SENATE.
(a) FINDINGS.–The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;
(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;
(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “reprehensible”;
(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;
(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “dishonest and dishonorable.”
(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and
(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.
(b) SENSE OF SENATE.–It is the sense of the Senate–
(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and
(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
A device to help those with autism and other conditions communicate has been excluded — and then included, and then excluded again — from health insurance coverage in Washington. At issue is the process by which insurers decide what’s covered and why, which doesn’t always reflect scientific consensus.
[More]
Another reason why health care is in trouble. There appears to be scientific consensus that these devices are not investigational and can be extremely helpful for autistic children. Some insurance plans pay for them but Regence does not.
According to the scientists, Regence’s policy goes against the professional consensus, and its literature review amounts to shoddy scholarship. For an ironic example, Millar’s review article, used by Regence to justify excluding SGD coverage, was actually cited by Premera as a reason to cover SGDs in cases of autism.
“So you have the same article being cited by two sister Blue Cross organizations within four months of each other reaching completely opposite conclusions,” says Golinker. “Neither knows what this article says.”
They mischaracterize the results of scientific research, do not talk with the researchers involved, yet use this work to claim the devices are investigational. It appears that the insurance companies are making decisions purely based on profit and not on science. No surprise here.
At Regence a group of nurse practitioners initially drafts policy revisions, says Richard Rainey, a Regence medical director based in Boise, Idaho. The draft is then reviewed by an unpaid external physician.
Makes you wonder what is going on when they get the science so far wrong?
What is interesting is where change is coming from. The businesses that are insured by Regence, Premera, etc. are having something to say. Microsoft, in particular, told Regence to cover these devices for their employees.
That is when Golinker found himself going back to Microsoft when another one of its employees had an SGD claim denied by Premera. Microsoft promptly reversed the denial and approved the device, without even waiting for the appeal. Soon after, Premera removed the autism exclusion from its policy again.
Possibly losing Microsoft’s business might be a good reason to change a policy. What happens if your employer is a lot smaller than Microsoft?
Essentially having to get approval for a new therapeutic or device one insurance company at a time does not make sense. But it is how we do things today.
by (A3R) angelrravelor (A3R)
