An American Cancer Society spot (SHOOT’s “Best Work You May Never See,” 10/9) told the story of Dan Brodrick who lost his job as a truck driver due to a back injury. Along with the job went his family’s health insurance and efforts to get new coverage were to no avail.
Last year, Dan’s wife Sharon died of cancer. He says that her death could have been prevented “if we had insurance. It’s just hard to swallow–to lose somebody like that.”
No matter where you stand politically on healthcare, there’s much that’s “hard to swallow,” which got me to thinking about how an oft-cited media dynamic within our industry corner of the world–“audience fragmentation”–contributes to the situation.
Fragmentation has had profound implications for marketers–and just as, if not a more profound impact on journalism. We’ve gone from the days of dominant network evening newscasts–with Walter Cronkite deservedly at the forefront (and a clear cut delineation between his news and the commentary of Eric Severeid)–to what are now assorted voices on primetime news channel programs.
Fragmentation was supposed to bode well for the public, offering new voices and takes on the news we need to know. That has proven true. But fragmentation has also resulted in genuine news values somehow getting lost in the shuffle, with personalities, sometimes crusading personalities, taking the spotlight.
Today you only need a fiefdom of a million or two viewers–a drop in the bucket compared to the Cronkite Nielsen share–in order to be “legitimate.” The formula for getting that audience fiefdom often involves being impassioned, controversial, galvanizing, if not outright polarizing. The talking heads have branded themselves and even when making some valid points–whether from the political right or the left–get us no closer to solving the issues of the day. Instead they stir the pot enough to attract their requisite number of viewers.
There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the political aisle. A dysfunctional bureaucratic government getting too hands-on involved in healthcare can be scary. Conversely, the daily obscenities that many have had to live and die with at the hands of insurance and pharmaceutical companies are unconscionable.
But where’s the middle ground in terms of areas of agreement? It’s in our everyday lives where people can agree that folks should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can agree that if a qualified medical opinion deems a person’s only real chance for survival is a bone marrow transplant or some other procedure, then that person shouldn’t be denied proper treatment due to an insurance company declaring it “experimental.” They can agree that the appeals process should be quick. Numerous patients have suffered for prolonged periods–or died–waiting for an appeals judgment to be rendered.
Still, there has been no legislative movement on these areas of agreement stretching across a pair of different Bush administrations, and a two-term Clinton regime–a span of some 20 years during which healthcare costs have risen exponentially.
Never mind the public option or other controversial proposals. The legitimate reforms that we have consensus on have failed to materialize for decades. Meanwhile Brodrick and millions like him see loved ones suffer, die, and are left with depleted life savings and staggering medical bills.
The ones who are getting healthy are the crusaders with their fragmented audiences, and the politicians whose healthcare coverage is paid for by taxpayers, too many of whom know all too well life with an HMO or without any coverage whatsoever.
Utah Leaders and Locals Rally To Keep Sundance Film Festival In The State
With the 2025 Sundance Film Festival underway, Utah leaders, locals and longtime attendees are making a final push — one that could include paying millions of dollars — to keep the world-renowned film festival as its directors consider uprooting.
Thousands of festivalgoers affixed bright yellow stickers to their winter coats that read "Keep Sundance in Utah" in a last-ditch effort to convince festival leadership and state officials to keep it in Park City, its home of 41 years.
Gov. Spencer Cox said previously that Utah would not throw as much money at the festival as other states hoping to lure it away. Now his office is urging the Legislature to carve out $3 million for Sundance in the state budget, weeks before the independent film festival is expected to pick a home for the next decade.
It could retain a small presence in picturesque Park City and center itself in nearby Salt Lake City, or move to another finalist — Cincinnati, Ohio, or Boulder, Colorado — beginning in 2027.
"Sundance is Utah, and Utah is Sundance. You can't really separate those two," Cox said. "This is your home, and we desperately hope it will be your home forever."
Last year's festival generated about $132 million for the state of Utah, according to Sundance's 2024 economic impact report.
Festival Director Eugene Hernandez told reporters last week that they had not made a final decision. An announcement is expected this year by early spring.
Colorado is trying to further sweeten its offer. The state is considering legislation giving up to $34 million in tax incentives to film festivals like Sundance through 2036 — on top of the $1.5 million in funds already approved to lure the Utah festival to its neighboring... Read More