Not even the administration's biggest defenders are trying to spin this as a successful launch.
Are you really implying the media as a whole is biased against Obama?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57606633/obamacare-we...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/poll-rollout-health-exchanges...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/some-say-h...
Just saying: take the 'single digits' claim with a grain of salt. You don't need to buy every ridiculous claim about this to acknowledge that this is a bad launch.
Also, regarding the 20 million figure, here's the quote:
Seven percent of Americans report that somebody in their household has tried to sign up for insurance through the health care exchanges, according to an AP-GfK poll. While that's a small percentage, it could represent more than 20 million people.
As many as 20 million "tried to" sign up, based on their extrapolation of some polling data.
The last I heard, no media outlet has been able to find a single successful sign up to interview, and they are definitely looking for one.
The CBS video also claims there have been only "a handful" of sign ups, and it's getting reported in lots of other places. It could be inaccurate, but these are mainstream outlets reporting this, not Breitbart or Drudge. The administration is refusing to release sign up numbers, which certainly doesn't look good.
As for not releasing signup numbers, I can't say I blame them. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual purchase numbers are abysmally low. On the other hand, it's probably reasonable to think those numbers will go up before they have to meet their self-imposed monthly reporting deadline. So I'd guess they're just sitting tight so that they can show a curve in the right direction. I don't think that's particularly insidious.
The quote refers to "single digits" and it is ridiculous. If even close to 20 million people tried to sign up then that means many millions of citizens need this coverage and will likely end up getting it because having health insurance is critical to their livelihood. Am I to believe 20 million people needed health insurance, got an error on the web site and just said, "forget this, being uninsured is better than dealing with a web site!"?
"The last I heard, no media outlet has been able to find a single successful sign up to interview, and they are definitely looking for one."
This is a weak argument. It is an anecdote of an anecdote which even if true would not be persuasive. Are you seriously saying that no one has signed up despite 20 million people trying (or single digits)? Your evidence is that you personally haven't found a media outlet that have themselves managed to find someone to interview? Perhaps we should wait a few weeks to make judgement after the facts are known and the government is actually running again?
This. A Washington Post reporter talks to one random (and anonymous) insurance guy (with who knows what kind of political baggage) who gives them a single quote. They run with it, other news organizations re-run it (repeat x100) assuming it's fact because the Washington Post is a "mainstream" outlet right? And them whammo you have a whole group of people thinking that under 10 people were able to signup for health care. Even if they don't literally think this, the PR damage is done. The perception is now cemented that the launch is a failure because of a "Washington Post report" (sounds official doesn't it?)
Just because a news organization is "mainstream" does not mean it does not carry with it a truckload of bias (see FoxNews/MSNBC).
When I see an article like this the first thing I do is click to see the "source". Often times it's another news org/blog article who cites another "source". Down the rabbit hole I go until I find the actual source which often times has had it's content mutated and taken out of context and/or spun to further the original author's point.
This isn't a "bloggers aren't journalists" rant. I don't care if you're a tiny no-name blogger or work for the Washington Post; your sources better be solid.
