Zen Curmudgeon
04-03-2005, 11:39 AM
In his April 3 column, Richard Halleck opined, "...in the turmoil facts will be hard for us of the public to ascertain given the biases of media reporting."
At last, a comment I can agree with. A characteristic of the Schiavo case I didn't see addressed was the overwhelming pro-Schindler bias in reports and analyses. Mr. Schiavo's name was usually associated with unsubstantiated charges of abuse, neglect, greed or disloyalty. The pro-life bias of the media apparently blinded reporters to their obligation to qualify their sources.
For example, two neurologists in the Schindler camp disputed the PVS diagnosis. This was reported without mention of facts relevant to their credibility.
One of those neurologists had been fined tens of thousands of dollars by medical regulators in Florida for defrauding patients. His Nobel prize "nomination" turned out to be a letter written by a Florida state legislator, not a member of the authorized nominations group.
As for the "Mayo Clinic" physician, the Clinic itself posted a message on its Web site flatly stating that Dr. Cheshire's behavior regarding Mrs. Schiavo's situation violated standards of medical care.
Mr. Schiavo was accused of coveting funds from a malpractice settlement at the same time the Schindlers were negotiating the sale of their list of donors and offering video tapes of their brain-damaged daughter in return for $100 "donations".
Much ink and air time was spent decrying a "cruel", "painful" death, but little was spent on the available evidence to the contrary, including statements from conscious patients who chose to remove their own feeding tubes and actually experienced the same death process as Mrs. Schiavo.
When extreme positions are put forward, by Christians such as Randle Terry and Tom DeLay, demanding unlimited commitment to life at any cost, I expect responsible media to ask about those costs, particularly in light of the current move in Washington to slice $20 billion from Medicaid funds.
When the President, a man whose resume includes authorizing more executions than any other living American, criticizes a lawful private decision, I'd like to hear questions about the meaning of "culture of life".
And when right-to-life proponents get so far down the road that threats of assassination against government officials seem to be a good idea, I wonder at a media that ignores domestic terrorism.
Halleck is correct - media bias does obscure facts.
Take Care -
ZC
At last, a comment I can agree with. A characteristic of the Schiavo case I didn't see addressed was the overwhelming pro-Schindler bias in reports and analyses. Mr. Schiavo's name was usually associated with unsubstantiated charges of abuse, neglect, greed or disloyalty. The pro-life bias of the media apparently blinded reporters to their obligation to qualify their sources.
For example, two neurologists in the Schindler camp disputed the PVS diagnosis. This was reported without mention of facts relevant to their credibility.
One of those neurologists had been fined tens of thousands of dollars by medical regulators in Florida for defrauding patients. His Nobel prize "nomination" turned out to be a letter written by a Florida state legislator, not a member of the authorized nominations group.
As for the "Mayo Clinic" physician, the Clinic itself posted a message on its Web site flatly stating that Dr. Cheshire's behavior regarding Mrs. Schiavo's situation violated standards of medical care.
Mr. Schiavo was accused of coveting funds from a malpractice settlement at the same time the Schindlers were negotiating the sale of their list of donors and offering video tapes of their brain-damaged daughter in return for $100 "donations".
Much ink and air time was spent decrying a "cruel", "painful" death, but little was spent on the available evidence to the contrary, including statements from conscious patients who chose to remove their own feeding tubes and actually experienced the same death process as Mrs. Schiavo.
When extreme positions are put forward, by Christians such as Randle Terry and Tom DeLay, demanding unlimited commitment to life at any cost, I expect responsible media to ask about those costs, particularly in light of the current move in Washington to slice $20 billion from Medicaid funds.
When the President, a man whose resume includes authorizing more executions than any other living American, criticizes a lawful private decision, I'd like to hear questions about the meaning of "culture of life".
And when right-to-life proponents get so far down the road that threats of assassination against government officials seem to be a good idea, I wonder at a media that ignores domestic terrorism.
Halleck is correct - media bias does obscure facts.
Take Care -
ZC