ABC: Free Airtime For ObamaCare, No Time for Stossel

Last week ABC News ran an all-day infomercial for ObamaCare and the ratings tanked for the primetime special.

Last Friday 20/20's John Stossel was slated to present a five-minute piece on Canada's abysmal government-run healthcare system and what do you know, it was yanked in favor of nonstop Michael Jackson coverage.

So much for presenting both sides of an issue.

Needless to say, Stossel isn't happy about it.

JOHN Stossel is telling his own network "Give me a break!" after it pulled his health-case insurance segment off the air to give more time to the death of Michael Jackson.

"I am sick of the Michael Jackson coverage," the "20/20" co-host wrote on his blog page at abc.com. "I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece."

He was apparently upset after the network decided to hold his piece on Canada's health-care system -- set to air last Friday night, the day after Jackson died -- in favor of a memorial to the King of Pop.

"Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses," Stossel wrote on his blog. But "I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad."

Using the network's own Web site to complain about its news decisions is pretty unusual.

According to senior vice president of ABC News, Jeffrey Schneider, the piece in question was a five-minute segment that contained some new reporting, but was mainly a compilation of clips from previous specials.

So it contains some clips? Big deal. The ObamaCare telethon contained a nonstop series of staged events and a filibuster from Obama himself.

Where is the new reporting in that propaganda?

Other than Jake Tapper, Stossel is one of the few credible sources appearing on ABC News. Conveniently removing his segment two days after the Obamathon seems very weak, especially considering it was five minutes during an avalanche of Jackson coverage.

Credit to Stossel for speaking up about yet another black eye for ABC.

Here are some thoughts from Stossel on the Canadian system. No wonder ABC censored him.

The Homeless Vets Myth

Watch the video from John Stossel and read Michael Fumento's analysis of a homeless advocacy group's bogus statistics.

This shocking report got a lot of media attention when it first came out, but you won't hear about it now that it's been demonstrably proven false.

THE homeless-advocacy industry always puts the most sympathetic face on its "clientele." It works desperately to divert attention from alcoholics, drug users, schizophrenics, and fat panhandlers holding signs reading: "Hungry."

And it doesn't talk about unpleasant truths like those reported by ABC's John Stossel - who, after exhaustive efforts, managed to find only one person with a sign reading "Will work for food" who would actually do so.

Instead, advocates focus (with the media's help) on unrepresentative but heart-tugging cases - like veterans.

Eleven years ago, I debunked a "study" claiming a third of all men in homeless shelters were vets - noting it was based entirely on the men's own claims, and that claiming to be a vet is a favorite panhandler ploy.

But comes now a new "study" from the Homeless Research Institute (HRI), the research arm of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. It claims government data show that vets are more than twice as likely to be "homeless" as non-vets - that is, that vets make up 11 percent of the adult US population, but 26 percent of the labeled homeless.

The 29-page report also insists it's a myth that substance abuse and/or mental illness is at the heart of the homelessness problem; rather, it's "lack of affordable housing." And, naturally, it's the job of an expanded government to make that housing affordable.

Read the rest.

This isn't to say there aren't any veterans who maybe homeless. It's just not what has been reported.

Shocking how the media would mislead you, no?