By Adam Chiara and Rosana Garcia
“Strict” — “drove out” — “onerous” — subjective words, yet, this is the language several media outlets have used to describe the Tenet-Waterbury Hospital deal.
With buzz about Tenet possibly coming back to Connecticut to meet with state Senate leaders on returning to the negotiating table, many members of the media have turned what is opinion into historical fact.
Take NBC CT, who was the worst violator of this. In their article, with no attribution, they wrote: “Strict regulations were what killed the deal in the first place.”
Again, it should be stressed there was no attribution attached to that sentence. Meaning, whether intentional or not, NBC CT as deemed the sole reason Tent walked away was because the state was irrational in the deal-making process.
While Tent and others may have thought the conditions were too strict, the state Office of Health Care Access (OHCA) and Office of Attorney General (OAG), who set the conditions, and many others who supported the terms, including the Foundation, thought the conditions were justified and fair.
So why did the media get to decide what was considered “too strict” or “onerous?” It is dangerous when those we trust to be an unbiased source of information, shapes their own narrative of a situation.
Well, it looks like we’ll have to do their job for them — here were the conditions and some background on the deal so you to come to your own conclusions…