We air our report on the CBS Evening News, after which Oversight Republicans issue a full press release providing the September 3 memo about the high security risks and the transcript from Chao stating that he didn’t know about it.
The vehemence with which the Obama administration reacts shows how near the story hits to a nerve. Their hysteria is heightened because other media, including the New York Times and the Hill, pick up the story. It becomes more difficult for Democrats to credibly label the reporting as partisan.
But still, they try.
Long after the story airs, Democrats provide their first hint of response in the form of spin rather than answers. They spread it through media surrogates who publish it nearly word for word and, judging by the factual errors, without doing any research or asking for documentation.
Their first talking point is to falsely claim that—contrary to what the government’s own memo states—there was never any true security risk to HealthCare.gov. They say that’s because the implicated parts of HealthCare.gov are no longer in use.
The second talking point falsely holds that there was never any threat to customer privacy data because the implicated parts of HealthCare.gov don’t transmit personally identifiable information.
And for good measure, the Democrats also circulate an on-the-record quote that, predictably, is devoted to the continuing campaign to controversialize Oversight’s Republican chairman Issa.
“Controversialize,” as in the PR tactic that involves launching a propaganda campaign using surrogates and sympathizers in the media to divert from the damaging facts. They try to turn the focus on personalities instead of the evidence.
Even the Washington Post, which has done some strong reporting on HealthCare.gov, gets snookered on this one. In a fact-check blog, the newspaper incorrectly states, “upon close examination of the [security-risk] memo, it had nothing to do with the parts of the Web site that launched on Oct. 1. Instead, the memo dealt with modules of the Web site that would not be operational until spring of 2014 . . . [and] will not submit or share personally identifiable information.”
Yes, that’s the Democrats’ spin pretty much word for word. But it’s factually incorrect.
The Post presents the Democrats’ take without attribution, as if it’s true, seemingly without proper fact-checking. Otherwise, the reporter would know that the security-risk assessment explicitly stated that sensitive, personal information was at risk because “inappropriate controls” exposed “financial and privacy data” that are part of the “entire enterprise.” The memo also stated explicitly that the risks applied to the entire Federally Facilitated Marketplace supporting HealthCare.gov, not—as Democrats incorrectly state—small, dormant pieces of it. And although the Democrats’ press release implies that there was never any danger because the dormant pieces where the problems were found won’t go online until the following spring, it fails to mention that they were already operational, exposing the HealthCare.gov system to the high-risk threat. Taking them off line until the spring doesn’t remedy that.
“Just taking [the suspect components] out of the system doesn’t remove the threat,” one cybersecurity specialist tells me. A second agrees and adds that to remove the “limitless” threat created when enabled macros on uploaded files allowed code to execute automatically, “the government would have had to audit every document already uploaded for malicious content.” He says there’s virtually no chance the government has been able to accomplish that massive job but goes on to say that “by law, all this audit work must be tracked and written down, so [if it’s been done] they should be able to provide a record of it.” Again, I ask HHS for such records but none are provided.
Now, the administration is in full pushback mode and Chao is indispensable to its PR recovery effort. The day after the Evening News, the Hill, and the New York Times reports, Chao testifies before Congress again and desperately attempts to revise and recast his closed-door testimony that looked so bad. Providing the Big Assist is a lead Oversight Democrat: Gerald Connolly of Virginia. In a pre-prepared exchange straight from the Democrats’ talking points press release, Connolly prompts Chao to testify that he and that September 3 security-risk memo were entirely misunderstood by the incompetent media, who succumbed to the persuasions of the corrupt Issa. There was never any security risk! Don’t believe that internal government memo. Listen to what we’re telling you now.
This is neither unexpected nor out of line with what Democrats have every right to do in their defense. It’s the media’s job to sort through and get at the truth. The problem is, in today’s environment, some in the media present political spin as if it’s fact—even when it runs counter to the evidence.
I liken some of the media’s behavior to a gullible jury hearing the case of the burglar who’s confessed on video after getting caught on surveillance tape. At trial, the burglar insists he didn’t really confess. His lawyer says the videotape recording of the confession is wrong. As for the surveillance tape showing the crime? Well, the defense says that’s mistaken, too. Who are you going to believe: me or your lyin’ eyes? The jury acquits, treating the implausible defense as fact rather than a position to be considered with appropriate skepticism.
Like the jury in the analogy, some in the media report the Connolly-Chao spin as if it sets the record straight. They said it at a hearing! So now, we know the truth! Never mind that it contradicts the evidence and that the administration refuses to provide the documentation that would theoretically support its version of events. Some just want to believe.
The administration’s surrogate bloggers ask whether CBS and the New York Times are going to correct our reports now that Chao says it’s all wrong—as if we’re to believe Chao’s latest spin instead of his previous sworn testimony and the actual documents. And in my case, I have the added supporting evidence from experts inside and outside the government who have explained the computer security risks, the memo, and its context.
Obama officials join in the effort to get me to “update” the Web version of my original report with their follow-up spin. They become incensed when I reply that I still need them to answer some basic questions and show documentation of their claims, which should all be public record. My reticence interferes with another of their PR strategies: they decline to provide information for the original story, then wait for it to publish, issue their spin, and ask that it be added to the Web version of the report. That way, they get their unchallenged statements printed verbatim and don’t have to answer any pesky questions. Then, they and their surrogates portray the “update” as a correction to try to discredit the original story premise.
It’s not much trouble to add an after-the-fact statement to a Web story, and most of the media usually go ahead and do it because it’s the path of least resistance. But the administration has a well-established history of misrepresenting facts on this story and it would be irresponsible to unquestioningly accept and print their spin when they’ve refused to answer basic questions of public interest and when their spin contradicts the available evidence.
So, ever predictable, White House press secretary Carney begins nagging my bureau chief, Isham, hoping to sway him into a sympathetic position. And Oversight Democrats call my senior producer, Prestia, to complain. I think about how much of the public’s time and money these federal employees are spending to execute their PR efforts.
Sadly, the propaganda effort takes hold and persists among a complacent media that fails to check its own facts and instead relies on partisan sources and blogs for background research, parroting what it reads or hears. A good eight months after my report on the security risks, in July 2014, NPR reporter David Folkenflik asks me about the Democrats’ complaints for a profile piece he’s producing about me.
To try to condense or expect anybody to quickly digest the research I spent many hours performing, and to ask them to immediately comprehend the jargon, backg
round, documents, and expert sources isn’t realistic. That’s why I’m an investigative reporter: I put in the time and understanding to present the facts to others who don’t have the time or ability to do the same on a given topic. I sure couldn’t absorb all the research in ten minutes, I can’t explain the research process and details in ten minutes, and I don’t think it would be easy for anybody else to understand in ten minutes.
Nonetheless, I spent a great deal of time with Folkenflik summarizing the evidence—documents, expert opinions, inside sources—in the simplest way I knew how. He seemed satisfied or at least didn’t question it further.
Not a word of describing my efforts made it into Folkenflik’s NPR report. In fact, he didn’t summarize or represent anything I told him. Instead, he mischaracterized my reporting as if my entire research for the HealthCare.gov security-risk story consisted of relying upon “a partial transcript” of a witness: Chao. That’s false and entirely contrary to the content of our interview. He also treated Chao’s contradictory testimony as if it should be accepted uncritically as the final word on the matter. This from an administration that repeatedly provided provably false information on this very topic. In the end, Folkenflik simply called the facts that I presented in my story “difficult to prove.” That’s wholly false. They may have been difficult for him to understand. They might have been time-consuming to explain. But they certainly weren’t difficult to prove.
After Watergate, few would have predicted today’s dynamic in which some journalists view their job not as questioning the powers that be, but undermining those who report on the powers that be. In this instance, journalists misreporting the HealthCare.gov security story accept, at face value, the word of the very government officials implicated in the mismanagement even though it’s contrary to their own prior testimony and documentary evidence. At the same time, these journalists portray my reporting, which culls from independent experts and documentary evidence, as “difficult to prove.”
| WANING APPETITE
If there’s a moment that’s emblematic of the political low point in the HealthCare.gov catastrophe, it might be the release of a CBS News poll on Wednesday, November 20, 2013. The president’s overall approval rating has fallen to the lowest of his presidency: 37 percent. His handling of health care has also hit bottom: just 31 percent approve. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of the job he is doing: the worst ever for President Obama in CBS News polls. And he’s lost ground on personal qualities like honesty.
How can the administration reverse the momentum? With help from the media.
Kim and I finish three weeks of strong coverage on the CBS Evening News, often breaking exclusives. It’s the kind of momentum that serves both our audience and the network.
But then, the light switch goes off.
Just as we edge ever closer to exposing more of the facts the government is trying to keep hidden—it’s a process and our mission—there’s a sudden loss of interest, internally, in my hard-hitting stories on the topic.
It begins, as it often does, with New York requesting that I work on a story that ultimately never airs. In this case, they want me to explore Chao’s wild inconsistencies. As the day-to-day manager of HealthCare.gov’s development, he’s the public face on its failures. We’ve all noticed the many contradictions in his positions and explanations, including those prior to HealthCare.gov’s rollout.
One example is found in a July 16, 2013, email I recently obtained from congressional investigators. In it, Chao worried about prospects for the website and contractor CGI: “I just need to feel more confident they are not going to crash the plane at take-off,” Chao wrote.
But he gave a very different impression publicly the next day when he and Tavenner testified to the subcommittees of the House Homeland Security and Oversight committees. Republican Scott DesJarlais asked about unfinished tasks.
DESJARLAIS So both of you are testifying today that [the website’s shortfalls] are going to be one hundred percent complete on October first?
CHAO Correct.
DESJARLAIS Ms. Tavenner?
TAVENNER Yes, sir.
A few days later, the worried Chao was back. He emailed colleagues the video link to his congressional testimony, saying, “I am not sharing this with you because I think it’s entertaining and informative” but rather “so you can see and hear that both Marilyn and I under oath stated that we are going to make October 1st . . . please share this up, down, and wide.”
Another contradiction comes from Chao on November 13, 2013, after the website’s launch, when he testifies before Congress and tells Republican Cynthia Lummis that he didn’t talk to White House officials before HealthCare.gov went live.
LUMMIS Did no one brief the White House about the status of the website before October first? Mr. Chao?
CHAO Not me personally, but our administrator, Marilyn Tavenner, certainly is representing the agency. So you might want to ask her.
In other words, Chao is helping shore up the Obama administration’s narrative that nobody at the White House knew the website was in trouble.
But internal government emails I’ve recently obtained indicate Chao personally met with White House chief technology officer Todd Park prior to the rollout of HealthCare.gov.
“One of the things Todd conveyed was this fear the [White House] has about [HealthCare.gov] being unavailable . . .” wrote Chao to colleagues after their discussion. “Todd does have a good point. . . .”
Drilling down on Chao’s conflicting positions is important. Public officials have a responsibility to be truthful in matters of their public duty, and part of our job is to pursue accountability. But my New York managers who originally assigned the story have a change of heart and delay it from one day to the next, and then it just fades away altogether.
Another story I propose that Evening News passes over is the discovery that CMS and the Congressional Budget Office predicted for years that the Affordable Care Act would cause millions of Americans to lose their work insurance. This directly contradicts recent statements from the White House’s Carney. In his frenzy to deflect attention from all the individual insurance cancellations, Carney had repeatedly insisted before TV news cameras that Americans who get insurance through their workplace will not be affected: “They don’t have to worry about or do or change anything.”
This is as stark and important a distortion as the president’s if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-you-can-keep-your-health-plan, only more audacious since Carney is making it after all the flak over the president’s misstatements. As I write in my script, Carney has given repeated assurances that nothing will change for those insured through work. But in 2010, it turns out, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate Obamacare would “collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 14 million.”
The prospect of 14 million workers getting dropped is at least as significant as the news of several million individuals being canceled—and that made big headlines. But the Evening News is oddly disinterested. The producers say it’s too soon to do the story about workers. Maybe we’ll revisit it next year when their insurance actually gets canceled.
I disagree with the premise of waiting: when you discover new facets of a story, you don’t keep them secret. You don’t wait to report them after the fact. Yes, we knew this disaster was coming all along but didn’t think you needed to know until it was too late. Under that mentality, we wouldn’t report that the government might shut down or a wildlife species might die out or a political candidate might win or a suspect might be guilty of a crime or a hurricane might strike a region: we’d just wait until it happened and then report that it did.
But Kim and I know that this dynamic has little to do with logic or what the audience wants or even the significance of the particular story. When I receive these kinds of signals, the writing’s on the wall. Stop the stor
y.
Nonetheless, Kim and I keep working. We’re convinced that a good story is a good story and somehow needs to be told. We’re able to find examples of business owners already canceling their workers’ insurance due to Obamacare. I go back to Evening News and tell them that the cancellations have already begun; we don’t have to wait until 2014 to do the story. Still no interest. Fortunately, we’re able to find a home for the report on CBS This Morning on November 26. And that’s pretty much the last in my string of in-depth or investigative health-care stories to make it on TV in 2013. From then on, the broadcasts want only basic stories from me that mark time but don’t uncover anything new.
As I’ve said, I’m never privy to exactly what turns the tide and halts a line of investigative reporting. Polls show unquestioningly that viewers remain keenly interested in all things HealthCare.gov. I do know from my sources that I’m not the only target of the incessant White House campaign of emails and phone calls. Obama officials are bearing down on many reporters and news organizations that have uncovered inconvenient facts. Appealing to the higher-ups, searching for sympathetic ideologies, trying to stop the negative coverage.
This sudden loss of interest also coincides with the administration calling in the special teams to handle Congress and the spin. It hires media relations specialist Jen Friedman, who worked on President Obama’s reelection campaign as well as at a bevy of federal agencies. The administration also brings in Jennifer O’Connor, a former private practice attorney who once helped defend President Clinton in congressional investigations. More recently, she helped the Obama administration defend the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax exemptions. These women are the equivalent of private PR crisis management flacks being brought in on your dime to manage the fallout. It’s become so commonplace for the federal government to spend tax money on whatever resources it needs for its self-serving goals—no matter how supposedly tight the budget—the practice doesn’t even raise eyebrows.
Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington Page 26