Laziness is defined as "resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness; not eager or willing to work or exert oneself."
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives these two items as definitions of journalism:
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest
I prefer journalists whose approaches match 2b of the definition (writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation). I am perfectly capable of forming my own conclusions when presented with facts; I resent the media's tendency to shape my opinions with slanted stories. I don't like agendas, and in my opinion, there is no place for bias in journalism.
Nor is there any place for laziness. And this is a blog about both.
There are basically two main DME publications: HomeCare Magazine and HME News. Each publication has its good points and its bad points, but both seem to have embraced a disturbing trend, and that's a failure to widen their scopes and check their facts.
If you want something published with no questions asked and no facts checked, send it to Elizabeth Beaulieu at HME News. I don't know Elizabeth, so I have nothing against her on a personal level, but I don't respect the "job" she does.
Elizabeth has printed as news some items she's received from the chest-beating, johnny-come-lately organizations that simply aren't news. It seems as though if you're from TAHCS or AMEPA, anything you send to her gets printed, no matter how ridiculous it is. Beaulieu trumpeted the TAHCS litigation like it's going to be the salvation of all, in spite of the fact that no anti-bidding litigation has ever been successful. She didn't even mention that, and that's a very important fact.
She's covered other things sent to her by those "organizations." Witness her handling of the ZPIC hysteria generated by TAHCS that was absolutely nothing new or newsworthy: she referred to ZPICs as the "newest acronym to put fear in the eyes of of HME providers." At the time of that story, ZPICs were not new. But when you have a group trying to keep themselves front and center to make themselves look more important and more effective than they really are, and when you accept such items as gospel instead of seeing them for what they are, you end up publishing crap.
A publication is only as good as it is credible. HME News has been sliding ever since Mike Moran moved on to other things. Yes, he's still involved to some degree, but my understanding is that he's not in editorial control of the magazine, Beaulieu is. Whereas Moran would do some digging, Beaulieu seems to be content with using what falls into her lap. That's not journalism, that's indolence.
HomeCare Magazine is in danger of sliding down the same slope. There are more experienced and more worthy people to quote.
Case in point: In today's HomeCare Monday, the first article is about CMS "fact-finding" in four of the CBAs. The piece indicates that HomeCare got some of their information from the CMS contractor (Abt), and from an attendee of the Riverside focus groups. Then the publication quotes Rob Brant, of AMEPA, who though not present at the focus group, presumes to discuss the event, basing his comments on what an attendee told him.
Shame on you HomeCare Magazine! If you're going to quote someone, quote a someone who was actually there, not an individual who wasn't. When did hearsay become credible (or even acceptable)? Where are your standards, HomeCare Magazine?
The Industry's Personal Jesus? Not Even Close!
Why do HME News and HomeCare Magazine quote the same people over and over again? And why are these same people quoted so often? Have they accomplished anything? Have they been responsible for effecting change? They've done no more than many people and organizations out there, and when last I checked, none of their self-proclaimed industry-saving efforts have managed to save the industry.
Yes, there are 250-plus signed on to H.B. 3790, thanks to the combined efforts of so many in the industry. But why, after all this time, is there no Senate companion bill? Without one, that House bill is going nowhere. If AMEPA and TAHCS are so credible and effective, why haven't they managed, in all this time, to get the Senate on board? Any why doesn't the industry press point out this failure?
Where were Rob Brant and his cronies prior to 2007? He's justified his sudden activism by criticizing the apathy of others, and by implying that the existing organizations just haven't done enough.
If those existing organizations had had his active support (and the active support of others as apathetic as he was) before MMA 2003 was passed, the industry might not be in the mess it's in today. If the principals in AMEPA and TAHCS had been offered contracts in the first run of round one, would those organizations have been founded?
I always consider the source of any tidbit of information I get. I always ask myself what his or her motivation might be, and what the underlying agenda is. I have come to the conclusion that HME News and HomeCare Magazine have decided that easy news is actual news, and that digging deeper isn't necessary.
It is necessary. Lazy journalism combined with self-serving sources doesn't feed the need for real information and possible solutions for an embattled industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment