Is CNN in Bed with Big Insurance?

So you know how CNN’s medical guru, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, is a Big Pharma flack? Well, it looks like, at least when it comes to health-care reform, the whole network is in the pocket of Big Insurance as well.

As Greg Sargent reports at The Plum Line, CNN has refused to air an ad from Americans United for Change criticizing “insurance companies and Republicans.”

The official excuse is that the ad targets a specific insurance CEO by name, Cigna’s Ed Hanway, who makes over $12 million a year (with a $70 million retirement package).

But that, as Greg notes, is the point of the ad (which will run on MSNBC): “AUC maintains that the mention of Cigna’s CEO was necessary to dramatize the enormous stake the insurance industry has in the health care wars.”

Makes sense — but, of course, the official excuse may not be the real reason, which is quite possibly that CNN, formally or not, is in cahoots with, or at least sympathetic to, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and the various other opponents of reform.

There could be political and ideological reasons, but mightn’t it also have to do with the fact that Big Insurance is a major advertiser itself? (One wouldn’t want to risk one’s bottom line, would one, even for the health and well-being of the American people?)

(Cross-posted at The Reaction, where you can view the ad.)

  

10 Comments

  1. Just now figuring that out? lol..

    Look, Fox is the mouthpiece for the far and insane right..no holds barred outright propaganda machine for BigMonopolies of all walks. CNN is their quieter cousin who only speaks up in a pinch but still tows the party line while making it appear that they're unbiased. MSNBC so far is the only mouth that speaks for the midliners or the left. So they take turns preaching to their choirs. Though of the three I like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report best…lol..

  2. I have to agree 100% with Silhouette. There's one thing that I'd like to add: Look at the COMPLETE LACK OF COVERAGE this story is getting in the media. I find that to be the story within the story (and more than a little disturbing).

  3. Or, maybe their telling the truth and don't want to be part of what could be perceived as a personal attack against a private citizen? Just a possibility.

    Not too long ago the left was accusing right wing media of stirring up hatred against another private citizen (who happened to be a prominent abortion doctor) that they argue eventually led to his murder.

    And what difference does it make if the organization says that the mention of the guy's name is necessary to make their point?

  4. Oh please, no one is calling this guy a “Baby Killer”

  5. Just because they refuse to run one ad does not mean they're 'in bed with big pharma.' That doesn't add up to conclusive evidence for me. Why is the health care debate becoming so extreme?

  6. 1556,

    It's debatable whether some on the left would consider him to be responsible for the death of many people, as the CEO of a private insurance company.

    But in any case, I didn't say that the two cases were on the same scale. I'm just saying that there is a precedent for media outlets being held responsible for attacking private citizens. And as far as we know this guy has not done anything wrong (taking a well-paying job is neither against the law nor morally wrong).

  7. Mabye they should show some journalisitc integrity and backbone, and say they won't show any commercials for either side.

  8. jeainnj- they've justified this decision based on their rule of not airing something that criticizes individuals by name. As far as I know, they haven't bent that rule for any ads that oppose the healthcare reform plan, have they?

  9. by all means, let's see how far we can bend the rules…

  10. Um, it's the Americans United for Change group that wants CNN to bend its rule. Personally I think it's a reasonable guideline for a network to take regarding political ads, and should be enforced on both sides.

Submit a Comment