[I emailed this letter to Mr Cohn this afternoon, but it has been returned as "undeliverable." I offer it here as a lesson in how Old Media deals with criticism]
Mr Cohn:
I vehemently object to your libelous characterization of my colleague, Bob Vineyard. If you had bothered to read the story, and follow the comments, you would have seen that this was never about the Frost's SCHIP eligibility, nor their insurance experience.
It was solely about media accountability and fact-checking, which the "Professional Reporter" failed to either do or disclose.
Bob never averred that the Frost's could have bought a policy for that amount, for the simple reason that their health histories were never disclosed in the story on which he was commenting. He simply saw that the reporter took a number at face value, without questioning it or even checking its accuracy, and spent a few minutes doing the research that reporter was presumably paid to do.
He found that a "typical" Baltimore-area family could indeed purchase excellent coverage for much less than the article stated. If there were exigent circumstances that would have precluded the Frost's from buying it, these should have been noted.
Before you chime in with "but their kids were in a horrible accident," please note that it is never made clear exactly when the Frost's were shopping. We can only reasonably assume that the Frost's were shopping prior to the accident. All the "professional reporter" had to do was to verify (and disclose) when the shopping was done, and how the numbers were determined.
Your comment that Bob didn't mention the pre-ex issue is thus a red herring, and an egregious attempt to change the subject from the media's inept handling of this issue.
I look forward to a written, public apology at your earliest convenience.
Mr Cohn:
I vehemently object to your libelous characterization of my colleague, Bob Vineyard. If you had bothered to read the story, and follow the comments, you would have seen that this was never about the Frost's SCHIP eligibility, nor their insurance experience.
It was solely about media accountability and fact-checking, which the "Professional Reporter" failed to either do or disclose.
Bob never averred that the Frost's could have bought a policy for that amount, for the simple reason that their health histories were never disclosed in the story on which he was commenting. He simply saw that the reporter took a number at face value, without questioning it or even checking its accuracy, and spent a few minutes doing the research that reporter was presumably paid to do.
He found that a "typical" Baltimore-area family could indeed purchase excellent coverage for much less than the article stated. If there were exigent circumstances that would have precluded the Frost's from buying it, these should have been noted.
Before you chime in with "but their kids were in a horrible accident," please note that it is never made clear exactly when the Frost's were shopping. We can only reasonably assume that the Frost's were shopping prior to the accident. All the "professional reporter" had to do was to verify (and disclose) when the shopping was done, and how the numbers were determined.
Your comment that Bob didn't mention the pre-ex issue is thus a red herring, and an egregious attempt to change the subject from the media's inept handling of this issue.
I look forward to a written, public apology at your earliest convenience.
Posts
