Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

Debate:
The debate we are discussing is the new law recently passed in Florida that mandates that anyone applying for welfare must first take and pass a drug test. This test must be paid for by the welfare recipient and they will be reimbursed if they were to pass. If they fail they cannot get welfare again until the next year and if they then fail a second time they must wait 3 years. The side that is FOR drug testing welfare recipients has many different arguments throughout the fox news footage including..
1. If people must be drug tested to work then people must be drug tested to get welfare
2. Discourages people from doing drugs
3. Ensures that states money is not going to pay for peoples drug habits
4. If you aren’t doing drugs you have nothing to worry about
5. Encourages people to be responsible
6. It isn’t an invasion of privacy to be drug tested for a job

That side that is AGAINST drug testing welfare recipients also has many arguments throughout the fox news footage including...
1. That this is an invasion to privacy and unconstiutional
2. Wasting tax payer dollars to implement the program
3. The children that benefit from welfare will be harmed
4. This is targeting and categorizing minority populations
5. This is assuming that people on welfare or poor people generally do drugs

Wiki:

Source 1 Fox News - Katie Thibert
1)http://video.foxnews.com/v/971428137001/drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients
2)http://video.foxnews.com/v/4657165/subject-welfare-recipients-to-drug-testing/
3)http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/10pm/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-mfo-20111017
4)http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1238876318001/
5)http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/110422-drug-testing-welfare-applicants
6)http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/120910-drug-testing-for-welfare:-good-idea-or-violation-of-rights
7)http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/090711-Welfare-drug-testing-lawsuit

I found a multitude of video footage of the debate on drug testing for welfare on Fox News, Fox shows this debate in a similar format throughout its reports and this format is one person from each side voicing their opinions about this law and somewhat debating. I will particularly Wiki up the first video link I have provided to keep this from being a novel. This news cast starts with a Fox reporter (we will call her Fox R) introducing the new law, that welfare applicants must be drug tested before receiving benefits. Fox R says right off the bat that ths debate is over what “some” call a right to privacy. Fox R then introduces the two women that will be discussing their sides of the debate a black congress woman (Mrs. Brown) and a white vice president of Family Pack (Sandy). Mrs. Brown is addressed with the first question whether or not this is an invasion of privacy, she begins speaking with an annunciation slightly different than I am used to today’s and sounds very defensive. The Mrs. Brown answers the question by declaring that this is clearly unconstitutional and will be taken to court and those supporting it will lose. Sandy then responds saying we are wasting tax payers dollars paying for peoples drug habits, and that drugs are illegal so if your not doing them that you have nothing to worry about, she says this with clear annunciation but in a defensive tone. Sandy says that the program promotes responsibility. Mrs. Brown then comes back to say that no other state uses the method. Fox R then interjects in the debate saying that when people get a new job they must be drug tested and that she doesn’t consider that unconstitutional, she then asks if Mrs. Brown thinks this is unconstitutional. Mrs. Browns says she doesn’t consider this unconstitutional but she does consider random testing unconstitutional. The reporter then directs her question at Mrs. Brown again saying that isn’t that the same thing. Mrs Brown says that job testing is not random, and she then avoids the question saying this program is costing Florida tax payers money. Sandy then says paying for peoples drugs is costing Florida's tax payers money. Mrs Brown says there is not particular place saying that the people receiving assistance are doing drugs. Mrs. Brown goes on to say that this will cost the tax payers money to implement the program however Sandy than rebuttals and says that the people must pay for the drug test themselves. Mrs. Brown than digresses and goes on to say that the governor is not doing what he promised. She than says that the governor owns stock in the company doing the testing. Sandy says that this is no longer the case and he doesn't own stock in this company. The debate ends with the two both arguing about tax payers dollars paying for drug habits. Throughout the debate both Sandy and Mrs. Brown get heated into the argument but Mrs. Brown seems clearly more upset, defensive, and unprepared for the arguments. Fox R also seems to be invested in the debate and seems to join Sandy in the fight against Mrs. Brown.

Source 2- CNN - Phil Ebben
1)http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/06/05/exp.nr.fl.gov.welfare.drug.tests.cnn
2)http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-02/us/florida.drug.tests.welfare_1_drug-tests-drug-screening-rick-scott?_s=PM:US

In a video interview, a CNN reporter asks Florida’s Republican Governor Rick Scott about his recent signing of a measure which requires adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening. The reporter begins with a covering statement that “Everyone could agree that state taxpayer funds should not be going to fund drug use.” He then follows by asking Scott whether Scott thinks that “A great number of welfare recipients in your state are drug users?” Scott responds by saying that he’s not sure, but that he believes that taxpayer dollars ought not to be used to subsidize drug use. The reporter returns to the question, asking “If you don’t know [whether welfare recipients are using drugs], why treat them as if you suspect that they are?” Scott then says that he doesn’t necessarily individually suspect welfare recipients of using drugs, and compares it to an employee who requires a drug screening prior to employment. Scott says that in the same manner as the employee is telling his employees that drug use in the work environment is prohibited, he is simply trying to show that drug use with taxpayer money is prohibited. The reporter again returns to asking “What evidence do you have that people on welfare are using drugs?” Scott responds by saying “Studies show that people on welfare have a higher tendency to be using drugs.” The reporter cuts him off, and reiterates Scott’s statement with a side comment about how “I don’t have that study”, to which Scott agrees with his previous statement. Scott then says “If they aren’t on drugs, it’s not a problem.” The reporter then asks about the budgeting cost of the drug screens. Scott says the cost is insignificant, and the reporter immediately responds, cutting him off with “how much?” Scott says “We’ll see how many people pass the test.”

In another article in which CNN covers the story,
CNN devotes about 10 lines of an article to describing the measure, and then follows with 12 lines bringing up the controversial points that opposition to the measure are complaining about. The article mentions that the law is “controversial”, and that Michigan attempted to pass a similar law that was found unconstitutional, since the 6th Circuit found it violated the 4th Amendment. The last statement in the article is “The court said the law would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to conduct drug searches for the safety of the public without prior suspicion.”

Source 3- Facebook -Brenda
1)https://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=drug%20testing%20for%20welfare&init=quick&tas=0.9291629499281321
2)https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mandatory-drug-testing-for-Corporate-welfare/121317061225727
3)https://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=drug%20testing%20for%20welfare&init=quick&tas=0.6637340768751222&type=eposts

Facebook is a good place to find information or really opinions on hot topic issues from the public. We have a lot of group members so hopefully this aspect of the topic will be less news broadcasting and give a different perspective on what is going on. The first thing I typed in the search bar was drug testing for welfare (this is what the first link leads to). It shows a variety of “pages” with a title that has those words in some order. To summarize the search page it has about 10 legitimate pages that contain around 1,000+ people who have viewed and “liked” the page. Of these 10 (legitimate) pages they all have titles that are in agreement to having drug testing mandated for welfare recipients.

Then I decided to give one of the pages a more in dept look, so I chose the page with the most amount of “likes” or the page with the most activity. This is my second link entitled “Mandatory Drug Testing for Corporate Welfare” (the title is a bit misleading) contained the most “likes” approximately 6,700. I went through a good amount of the site and the posts contain articles on the welfare law that was in place in Florida recently. People have posted numerous statements regarding their allegiance with mandating drug testing. Many claims are along the idea that people test for jobs and should test for welfare money. They also claim that it is the tax-payer’s money so therefore they should get the say on where is goes or at least regulations as far as where is it going. There were not many (if any) that were against the idea of mandating drug testing for welfare.

The third important Facebook link I thought was important to share was the “public posts” section. This showed any posts (public) that had statements regarding welfare and drug testing. This entire page was filled with “photos” named “Paul Walker’s photo” the photo was an icon that said “If I need to take a drug test to get a job then you need to take a drug test to get welfare”. There are a bunch of these photos and many people like the photo. This is what the the entire page is filled with.

Source 4- National Public Radio - Emily Lynch
1) States Consider Drug Test Requirement For Benefits
2) Should Welfare Recipients Get Drug Testing?
2) Judge Blocks Fla.'s New Welfare Drug Testing Law
3) Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients, State Workers Ignites Debate In Florida
5) Drugs & Welfare

National Public Radio covered our topic multiple times over the last few years. I’m choosing to dig deeper into one specific program called “Talk of the Nation,” hosted by Neal Conan on October 11, 2011. Here’s how the broadcast, entitled “States Consider Drug Test Requirements for Benefits,” played out:
The radio program starts off with Neal CONAN giving a very brief, one minute introduction to the subject, before inviting his first guest, Michael BENDER. Bender, is the state capital reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, from Tallahassee, Florida.
Bender starts off basically with free reign over the conversation. Host Conan aids slightly in question to question format, the way a host typically does, but truly Bender has the air time and the freedom to completely and thoroughly state his case. He first bashes the reasonings for the new law in Florida, in which Governor Scott proposed that this would save money, then he went on to dig into the Governor himself -- with no restraints whatsoever.
After Bender had his air time, Conan thanked him for coming - and he was off. The sole phone call response that NPR answered was from a man named RYAN. RYAN was saying how, ‘really, drug tests aren’t that bad.’ RYAN, the sole opposition to Bender’s case, had horrible communication skills. He admitted to being an alcoholic and former drug user, drove a forklift in a warehouse, and just had very average-to-terrible communication skills.
The Next interviewee was Kentucky State Representative, Lonnie NAPIER. Napier is in support of a bill that requires testing for adults receiving governmental assistance in Kentucky. Conan simply asked if this differs from Florida’s law? And Napier slightly mumbled through his response: “My... it’s probably a little different.” Throughout his time, Napier repeated three times that he is “very compassionate” and that he is simply “trying to get people off of drugs” - and didn’t really give any factual or statistical evidence or support.
Napier’s interview was cut short -- mid-topic -- for a conveniently placed commercial break from the station. Conan, twice asked if Napier could stay with them over the break, and then asked if he was still present when they got back. Napier seemed as if he was in defense throughout his pre-commercial interview -- & because of this Conan had to keep checking to make sure he was on air yet. Conan did not have to do this with any other interviewee on the program.
When they came back to the programming, instead of having his solo interview started up again, Napier and Conan were now joined by General Barry McCAFFEREY, US drug czar. McCafferey got his allotted, seemingly unguided time, and then they invited Napier to “give him a chance to respond.” Again, Napier responded, uptight and on the defense.
The rest of the “Talk of the Nation” program answered the public telephone responses - and both Napier and McCafferey stayed on with Conan. A few callers were for the testing, a few were against. Both men responded equally - making this portion really was the most non-biasly formatted segment.
At the end, Conan thanked his guests. Napier responded with another lengthy plea, rambling about the non-partisian roots of his law and how he is “compassionate” and whatnot. And McCafferey, sounding really calm, intelligent, and collected, simply said “thank you.”

Source 5 - MSNBC -Elizabeth
1)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44520027#44520027
2)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42329730#42329730
3)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45021200

In the first video, we are introduced to 35 year old Luis Lebron, and Orlando man who is challenging Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test and his attorney John Dingfelder. Luis says he is both hurt and offended, and that is casts a cloud over many central Floridians who have fallen into a hard time. His attorney states that it is unconstitutional. Then flash to a picture of Gov. Rick Scott and him stating that: “its how they are going to make sure that their tax money is spent well. Something about very good for them to stay off drugs and for their families. Then Luis’s attorney says (or something very close to): “ its definitely bad policy, and its based upon very ugly stereotypes, you know people have said that all the time if your on welfare you must be some drug addict. And we know that’s not true and Luis is testimony to that.” Then news caster voice over says that Luis cares for his 4 year old son and disabled mother, he’s a naval veteran and full time student at UCF. Then Luis says “ hes served this country and to this day he is doing the right things going to school taking care of my son being a model citizen. He believes there is a lot of good people in this world and that the good out way the bad. Voice over states that since the law has passed 98% of the people who take the test have also passed. Luis attorney says that the state is wasting money and adding costs onto the program.

In the second video started with drug tests with public employees. Then at 0:35 talks about Gov. Rick Scott wanting to test for welfare as well. And how hes going to charge the people asking to receive well fare for the drug tests. The anchor man says “There on welfare they don't have the money. And why is he doing this.: (Gov) Co founded solantix which specializes in your not gonna believe this drug tests.”

Analyze:

CNN-
CNN overall seemed to portray a negative light onto the measure that Scott signed. The reporter was quick to question what the governor responded with, and notice that the first question that the reporter asked the governor was not a soft ball, but a difficult question meant to make Scott scramble. After Scott attempted to field the question, the reporter immediately questions him about cost and budgeting. None of the questions were designed to show the merits of the measure.
In addition, the article was clearly showing the controversy of the decision, giving examples such as Michigan’s vetoed law, drawing an immediate comparison between unconstitutional laws and Scott’s measure. The last line in the article shows why the courts vetoed the law, and again, leaves the thought with the reader that Scott’s measure may be unconstitutional. Again, the article does not emphasize the merits of Scott’s signing, but rather the controversy it brings up. I would say that CNN is arguing against Scott’s measure with the way that they present the material and the way that the interview was handled. They want their subject (the general public) to see the controversy and possible constitutional danger in this measure, and highlight certain aspects of the measure to do so. They are trying to argue their subjects into a particular position regarding this issue.

NPR-
National Public Radio covered our topic, drug testing for welfare, on multiple occasions. Although most of them seemed balanced and unbiased at the first glance, after I did some work digging up interviewees, analyzing interviews..etc. I found they each had interesting pulls towards the liberal stance. Just slightly, and seemingly-slyly, opposing the welfare drug tests.
Throughout this podcast -- I couldn’t help but focus on its time allotments, and the overall structure of the interview. The first man interviewed, Bender, was given ample, unguided time to plea his case. In writing, his interview lasted 2 full pages. The next closest was a mere half page. There were no interruptions, distractions, and really no harsh questions. His interview went on the longest, was the cleanest, and he was able to do a thorough job representing those opposed to testing.
The one phone call they aired -- in opposition to Bender’s case, just happened to be an alcoholic, fork-lift-driving man with terrible communication skills. He was the first representation of the opposite stance in this case. He was no match for sophisticated Bender.
The second man interviewed, however -- who happened to represent those in support of the drug testing -- had to deal with a commercial break, multiple callers, and the addition of another professional in opposition to his stance. He was rushed, always in defense, and never left to fully plot his case.
The other standout bias that I became aware of is the professionalism of the subjects who sided with the democratic, liberal position -- and the seemingly frantic nature and lack of “intelligible-speech” of the opposite belief holders. I did some digging, and Bender has written more-than-a-few articles opposing drug testing for welfare recipients. He was poised, incredibly familiar with the issues, since he is from Florida, and had many credentials. Napier, however, was from Kansas, was not as poised of a speaker, did not seem to know the entire Florida issue - but instead was focused on his own, Kansas efforts. He never really presented data-driven or sophisticated responses to any answers.
For NPR, who usually prides itself in its smart, academic audience - this guy absolutely had no supportive data and was overall not impressive. Why they didn’t choose a Floridia Representative, who could truly dig into the topic to an equal level as Bender, well -- that, I now realize, could be our hidden, cultural biases at work.

Fox News-
I put a list of sources of video footage because I wanted to make the point that each of Fox News video coverage of this topic is very similar in style. I put the first 7 video links that came up when I google searched the topic for Fox News so I wasn’t picking and choosing when selecting them. In each video report the individual supporting the drug testing for welfare is white, and the one against the drug testing for welfare is black. I think that Fox News is doing cultural work with this representation. In particular Fox causes the viewer to associate black with welfare receiving and therefore against the drug testing and white as non welfare users and therefore for the drug testing. Fox lets black signify poor which in turn signifies drug using in this debate and white signify wealthy which in turn signifies non drug using. Fox also in my opinion makes those against the welfare testing appear uneducated, especially in the first video where Mrs. Brown who is against drug testing for welfare lacks the quality speech that in today's society is considered “intelligible speech” . Sandy on the other hand who is for welfare drug testing has both “intelligible speech” and an overall “intelligible body”. Fox also seems to take a side when Fox R appears to join up with Sandy against Mrs. Brown, this indicates to viewers that fox news agrees with drug testing for welfare. Also in this clip shown by Fox News Mrs. Brown gets much more heated than Sandy and makes it almost appear that she is losing the battle during the debate. This also indicates that drug testing for welfare is generally accepted by Fox and Fox is trying to subject this opinion on its viewers. This debate also focuses on two main points of the debate; which are tax payers dollars and something being unconstitutional. Fox news especially seems to support the portion of the debate that drug testing is done for people with jobs so why can’t it be done for people not working. I think the point about people needing to be drug tested to not work because people need to be drug tested to work underlies the belief that people on welfare don’t work because they are lazy not because they can’t get and or find jobs, once again stigmatizing this group.

MSNBC-
Overall MSNBC portrayed a negative light on Gov. Rick Scott, and the new law that had been passed. The way in which this occurred/was brought to my attention was through the use of intelligible bodies; in the the first video this occurred through the use of a body that in America is viewed as an upstanding citizen who has fallen upon hard times. Luis is the signifier who signifies many important things that many Americans view as an upstanding citizen; he’s a father, taking care of his disabled mother, a naval veteran, and currently attending college; however he has fallen upon hard times and with all of this he needs financial support. The other intelligible body that was used was Luis’s attorney, an attorney who is fighting for Luis and his constitutional rights. Luis’s attorney, John Delfingder it the signifier and he signifies an “upper class” educated white man helping Luis and fighting for the constitutional rights of all those in need of financial aid. MSNBC uses the emotions of the viewers and their expectations and preconceived ideas of the criteria being discussed. The majority of MSNBC viewers are the masses; people who will watch the news after a long day of work, or after a long day with their kids. In general most of the people who are watching are not going to have a strong basis of information on the topic, so MSNBC uses the emotions of those watching as rhetoric to argue that drug testing for financial aid is based on “ugly stereotypes” that just are not true; take Luis for example. And MSNBC is trying to subject this idea onto the viewer by also only givingone side to the issue. They only displayed and discussed how the law negatively affected Luis and other people in need of financial aid and how it took away from their constitutional rights, however they never argued for or discussed the other side of the issue with the same enforcement as the other side.

Facebook-
Facebook was definitely one-sided, all of the “groups” were titled something along the lines of “mandatory drug testing for welfare” and makes it pretty obvious where the (facebook) public opinion lies. People are “liking” these pages which leads me to believe that they “like” the idea that people who are receiving welfare get drug tested in order to receive it. From the posts on the aforementioned popular page with the most “likes” there were many post from the public giving personal testimony, putting their own stories on facebook about how there family receive welfare and would not mind getting drug tested at all if it were to eliminate people who were abusing the system. The other reason I was led to this conclusion is because I also typed in the opposite of my initial search, “No drug testing for welfare” and found only one page with 47 “likes” in total. People are definitely more passionate on facebook about getting mandatory drug testing for welfare. This is a way people can express there feelings on economics and politics. Facebook shaped our generation, everyone is checking facebook all the time wherever they are, they express opinions on everything and they have expressed opinions about the political and economical situation. Facebook users use rhetoric through the Facebook pages and personal posts to persuade people who look at public profiles or groups regarding drug testing for welfare that mandatory drug testing is necessary. More specifically owners of the group pages argue (through rhetoric) by using articles and videos of news broadcasting to show the audience that it is necessary for people on welfare to be drug tested. The other argument had really no opinion or voice on facebook, it was one-sided and the stronger argument that was posed was for mandating drug testing.

Compare:
Each of our sources were similar in that they utilized what society considers an “intelligible body” to sway the audiences opinion on the subject one way or another despite which side the media outlet was supporting. They used strong interviewees in the side of their biased and weaker ones for the opposing side. NPR, CNN, MSNBC all argued against drug testing for welfare benefits. Fox News argues for drug testing for welfare benefits. Facebook although more groups were found that were for gives a somewhat more equal representation because it allows everyone access to the media outlet, it is the public’s input leaving less political drive bias. Although none of the media outlets explicitly stated they were for or against the issue their portrayal and representation of it made it clear to the viewer what they believe. Each source had a different audience and they used this to their advantage to reach that particular group of people the strongest. NPR used more academic interviewees where as MSNBC used more general interviewees that played more on emotions and less on fact. In Fox News the reporter even seemed to be in the debate further swaying opinions.

Position:
The sources we used are definitely a representation of how the leading classes are controlling the news and the history being made, it is the upperclass government officials that are in control of not only the policies being made (that actually don’t have direct implications on them) but also on how these policies are being portrayed in the news. Here Marx can help us understand what is going on, “the class that is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” Very rarely would someone on welfare be able to portray their opinion in a debate on the news unless there was some political force behind it creating that representation. People on welfare would not in any case be employed be the news or other media sources and therefore are only represented by the ruling class in the media. Despite the medias bias for or against drug testing for welfare benefits the leading class still determines the position and formulates the argument.

Thanks for reading
-Dunder Mifflin Paper Company (Katie Thibert, Philip Ebben, Brenda Senger, Emily Lynch, Elizabeth Gosselin)