McCaughey v. Stewart: A knife to a gunfight

I like you, but I don’t understand how your brain works.
-Jon Stewart to Betsy McCaughey

There could be no better illustration of the difference between a political discussion and what occurs on a so-called news show than Jon Stewart's interview of Betsy McCaughey.

McCaughey is a health care advocate who launched the meme that has since become the “Death Panels” talking point. She is an experienced PR messenger who appears before national audiences on radio and TV and never goes off script.  That she’s even talking to Stewart (who opposes her viewpoint and has an audience that will support him on virtually anything) illustrates her confidence in her ability to get her message across.

And she gets bludgeoned.

Stewart mops the floor with her, in part because he is so well prepared, but largely because McCaughey is so good at her job.

Stewart is having a conversation – and McCaughey is reciting her talking points. In any Sunday talk show, McCaughey ‘s approach would have carried the day.

How many times have you seen this exchange before?

Interviewer: [Your boss has stayed silent on this issue, but you haven’t] And — and that, to your critics, is a sign of his statesmanship and your lack of it.

What do you make of that?

PR Messenger: Well, I — I don't pay a lot of attention to what the critics say, obviously.
From my standpoint, the notion that I should remain silent, while they go public, that I shouldn't say anything, while they threaten to disbar the lawyers who gave us the advice that was crucial in terms of this program, that I shouldn't say anything when they go out and release information that they believe is critical of the program and critical of our policies, but refuse to put out information that shows the results that we were able to achieve.

The bottom line is…

Most times, that’s the response. No follow up. A shorter version would be-

Interviewer: Give me your talking point.

PR Messenger: Here it is.

McCaughey is clearly prepared for that kind of interview.  She enters with a prop (a large binder containing part of a health care bill), and refers to it as she sits down. “I’ll put this down here.”

Tactic 1: She tries the charm.

McCaughey: Hello everybody…It is so nice to be here.  This is such a great show. It’s such a big show…”

Which is her attempt to assert control of the conversation. Sit back and let me praise you.

This goes nowhere, anyone trying to disarm Stewart on his show should know better.

Tactic 2: Distract the audience. She discusses her prop, the copy of the bill. She rolls her eyes at the size of the document, suggesting that its size means it is both bad and hard to understand (for us).

Stewart doesn’t take the bait. He immediately goes right at her assertion that health care reform will compel seniors to make end of life choices they don’t want. “The infamous page 425,” Stewart calls it.
McCaughey, in classic PR fashion shows no fear.

McCaughey: Let’s get right to it, this is my major concern...

 Tactic 3: But before we get to your question…

McCaughey: I really want to help cover the uninsured. Nobody should lose their home or their savings because they bet sick.

 I come in peace. Classic PR – answer a question you weren’t asked. Say something no one can have a problem with.  Then switch to-

Tactic 4: Hit your talking point:

McCaughey: …But this bill is dangerous..

Science of attention, classic pivot: I’m for good things, and this bill is bad.
The talking point continues:

McCaughey: Page 425 to page 430 outline advanced consultations, living wills, other end of life consultation issues. The government proscribes what must be covered in detail including foregoing nutrition and even antibiotics.

Twofold tactic here: Hit the talking point, get out the scary words “government proscribes” and “foregoing nutrition” – she’s also establishing her mastery of the subject: she cites page numbers.

Stewart counters-

Stewart: Although the language is ‘life sustaining procedures’, the language of the bill is..

 Tactic 5: Stay on message.

McCaughey: No, it includes hydration, nutrition...

 McCaughey is trying to get all her scary words out there. Stewart cuts her off-

Stewart: No no no, I understand that, but they also say – it’s so you can make that decision.

McCaughey: That’s right. But it does proscribe, the uh medical professional shall, not may, shall must include-

Stewart: Have the conversation. If they have the conversation with you.

McCaughey: That’s right.

 McCaughey’s faltering here – she’s agreed to something Stewart has said. Twice.

Stewart presses on and starts to do some damage-

Stewart: Now you have said that the conversation is mandatory.

McCaughey: It is.

Stewart: Now the bill, at least the way I read it, and again…

Tactic 6: Stall.

McCaughey: Did you only read section 1233?

Stewart: I may…

McCaughey: That’s the problem. Factcheck.org. Everybody reads factcheck.org. They’re really spot-check.org.

All this yammering does nothing to back up her assertion that the conversation is mandatory. It does put Stewart on the defensive (Did I read 1233? Well, I…) and give her time to fill airtime with yet another talking point: Don’t trust factcheck.org.

Stewart: Give me the part that says it is mandatory that you must.

McCaughey: 1233. It’s on page 432.

Stewart: Read it to me. I’d be happy to hear about...

Stewart asks her to back up her mandatory assertion. The whole point of the discussion is being insisted on. Read it out. If you have it, show it to me.

Can anyone picture this exchange happening on any Sunday “News” show? That a talking point would have to provide a citation which is then read aloud to the audience?

When push comes to shove – she cannot produce a citation that backs up what she has said here and in other places.

She does try a host of distractions:

• “Look! I wrote ‘disgusting’ on this page of the bill!” Why does that matter?
• “Listen to this story about…”  Your story is irrelevant.
• “This provision is so dangerous, the Senate has ripped it out of its draft” Only because you are freaking people out with misinformation.

No. Stewart smacks her down and then spells out what he’s asking for 

Stewart: But there is absolutely nothing in that reading that says this is a mandatory consultation-

McCaughey:  Well, you’re wrong.

Stewart: I’ve read it. Honestly.

McCaughey:  You’re wrong.

Stewart: Alright then show me where it says it.

And they go to commercial while she tries to find it.

They come back with Stewart reading a citation that is filled with bureaucrat-ese that sounds nothing like what McCaughey has described. He pronounces the last words with particular relish: “…adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.”

You can just feel the collective smirk from the audience.

Undaunted, McCaughey claims our health care is the best in the word. Which leads to:

Stewart: We’re 46th in life expectancy

McCaughey: Life expectancy. When you remove violent crime and car accidents, we are number 1.

The audience laughs.

Stewart: (smiling) Point taken.

McCaughey: So instead of fixing the health care system we could fix the highways.

Incredibly, she’s still trying to push her talking point – and so Stewart cuts her off at the knees.

Stewart: Maybe what we could do is this. After a car crash, ship people to countries that are really good at treating people who have been in car crashes.

Ow. That’s going to leave a mark.

Clearly rattled, McCaughey then tries to paint him as an elitist: Well Jon, you’re so rich, he’s got a big penthouse…


And Stewart judos her all over again.

• She discusses her plan – which Stewart has read and then crucifies.
• She brings up a testimonial letter – which Stewart exposes as the distraction it is.
• I’d give her credit for hanging in there, but that’s the very thing that ensures she looks like a total fool.

Watch all three segments. They are fricking beautiful from any angle. Ask yourself what journalist would be this prepared, or pin down a guest to this degree?

Part 1 (Via TPM)

Part 2 (Via Comedy Central)

Part 3 (Via Comedy Central)


Late update: PalMD has a great observation on Mccaughey's tortured logic as it applies to PQRI:

HR 3200 does add a PQRI clause to advanced directive counseling, which, it may be argued, incents physicians to have these conversations and document them.
[Mccaughey is suggesting that] if this is included in quality measures, then it will be included in incentive, therefore doctors will coerce patients from changing their minds about advanced directives, which might lose them credit for "adherence".

...

This can only be an intentional misreading of the bill and of reality itself. The PQRI system, for example, provides different codes for a measure. There is usually a code for "did it", and "didn't do it because it's not appropriate" and "didn't do it because patient doesn't want to". The doctor is not in any way pressured to "require" patients to do a damned thing. And if the family changes their mind and "chooses to live", as McC puts it, there is no reason any sane, non-religious-zealot doctor would stand in the way. While the specific PQRI coding isn't proposed in the bill, there is not reason "adherence" would stand in the way of "mind-changing", since then you've created a new advanced directive with which to adhere.