I rolled into Whole Foods today to grab a drink and noticed a group of protesters at the entrance. They were holding up signs attacking John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, for his stance on Obama’s health care reform plan. I stopped to snap a photo and grab a flier, which referenced a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mackey.
While I do believe that we should try to provide some form of universal health care in this country, it frustrates me to see either side frame their content in such a way that it distorts reality. Take this photo for example: the protester carried a sign that said “Whole Foods CEO Against Health Care”. Really? John Mackey is really against “health care” as a concept? I doubt it. From reading his op-ed piece, I understand that he is against Obama’s plan, but nowhere in the peice did I get the sense that he is anti-health care.
While this may seem like a picky argument, it makes a difference. The way you frame your argument affects the way the discussion unfolds and the level of your credibility. A more appropriate phrase might be “Whole Foods CEO Against Current Health Care Reform Bill”. Is this as dramatic and scary? No. Is it more accurate? Yes.
Had these protesters framed their content in a more accurate and reality-based context, I would have taken them more seriously.
