Posted on 03/22/2005 7:35:07 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
ABC, CBS and NBC Evening News Coverage Favors Those Who Would Stop Feeding Disabled Woman
A new Media Research Center study finds the three broadcast network evening newscasts have tilted their recent coverage of the Terri Schiavo case in ways that bolster her husband Michael’s arguments that the severely disabled woman is in an irreversible vegetative state and had clearly expressed a desire to die. But network reporters have attempted to debunk arguments made by her parents — namely that some doctors believe she could be helped and that Mrs. Schiavo, a Catholic, would not want her feeding tube disconnected.
MRC analysts looked at all 31 evening news stories aired from Thursday, March 17, when the impending removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube put her case back in the news, through Monday, March 21. The researchers looked at both weekday and weekend newscasts, although CBS’s weekend coverage was pre-empted in Eastern time zones to show college basketball.
• Condemning Congressional Activism: A majority of soundbites (59%) repudiated Congress for acting to permit Mrs. Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, to bring their case to a federal court before their daughter starves to death. Nearly all of the supportive comments came from members of Congress such as Rep. Tom DeLay, who was shown on ABC’s World News Tonight on Saturday: “We’re expediting this as fast as we can do it, so that we can get that feeding tube back into her and keep her alive until she’s had her day in court.”
But the condemnations of Congress did not just come from Michael Schiavo and Democrats; some reporters joined in the castigations. “Whatever your beliefs,” ABC’s Jake Tapper commented on Friday, “Terri Schiavo and her family deserved better than the way Congress worked this week.” On Monday’s CBS Evening News, reporter Elizabeth Kaledin argued that “this is exactly the kind of scenario doctors are worried about. It’s sad enough that this case had to play out in the courts, but to get politics involved now, I think they would say, is just bad medicine.”
• Rejecting the Schindlers’ Case: Three-fifths (60%) of soundbites (including reporter comments) presented Michael Schiavo’s case that Terry Schiavo should die, compared with just two-fifths offering the counter-arguments of her parents. Not a single story was devoted to a skeptical look at Schiavo and whether he was acting in his wife’s best interests, but all three networks ran stories rejecting Mr. and Mrs. Schindler’s view that their daughter could possibly be helped.
On Friday, a few hours after Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed, ABC’s Peter Jennings dismissed one of the Schindlers’ worries: “They also say that she will die a painful death, though there does not seem to be any support for that argument in the medical community.” On Monday’s World News Tonight, reporter Jake Tapper rejected the value of videotapes showing Terri Schiavo apparently responding: “In some ways, these tapes are like psychological inkblot tests. You see in them what you want.” Then ABC’s Dr. Tim Johnson summarized that “the conventional wisdom, by experts in this field, is that after five years in a persistent vegetative state, there is virtually no chance for recovery.” NBC showed Dr. Robert Cranford, who has examined Mrs. Schiavo. He said that in spite of how she appears on videotape, “she’s as unconscious as someone who is dead.”
None of the broadcast network stories showed even one dissenting expert. But FNC’s Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on Monday interviewed Dr. William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who spent 10 hours observing Terri Schiavo. Hammesfahr said she is “completely aware and conscious and responsive...like a child with cerebral palsy.” Is Hammesfahr offering false hope, or did the networks stack the deck against Terri Schiavo?
— Rich Noyes
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined.
Petitioner Nancy Beth Cruzan was rendered incompetent as a result of severe injuries sustained during an automobile accident. Copetitioners Lester and Joyce Cruzan, Nancy's parents and coguardians, sought a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment after it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of recovering her cognitive faculties. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that because there was no clear and convincing evidence of Nancy's desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn under such circumstances, her parents lacked authority to effectuate such a request We granted certiorari, and now affirm.
CUT
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring.
I agree that a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions, and that the refusal of artificially delivered food and water is encompassed within that liberty interest. I write separately to clarify why I believe this to be so....
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion -- requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve his or her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life and death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable....
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.
"Medical technology has effectively created a twilight zone of suspended animation where death commences while life, in some form, continues. Some patients, however, want no part of a life sustained only by medical technology. Instead, they prefer a plan of medical treatment that allows nature to take its course and permits them to die with dignity."
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
Our Constitution is born of the proposition that all legitimate governments must secure the equal right of every person to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." In the ordinary case we quite naturally assume that these three ends are compatible, mutually enhancing, and perhaps even coincident.
Excerpt from: CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 497 U.S. 261 June 25, 1990, Decided
That's a fascinating find.
What is the husband's reason for not letting her parents take care of her? This is a complete mystery.
Ping
Michael Schiavo is all about money. He has used the money intended for Terri's rehab to pay lawyers to help him get her killed. I would imagine that the books have been cooked, and that he has profited.
I completely ignore the MSM entirely. Fox news, Free Republic and the Drudge Report, What else could you need?
Ping to #1
How does this apply to Schiavo?
That remark is a perfect example of what's so vexing about this matter - too much heat and too little light. Opinion stacked upon opinion, resting on opinion. Facts? Who needs them. In an effort to cast Mr. Schiavo as the villain I have read any number of accounts of the disposition of the $1M award that have him profiting from the judgment. Those I consider most authoritative indicate that roughly $800k has been exhausted in her care, and the remainder went to Mr. Schiavo's lawyers.
Does anyone have any of the links to the pleadings in this various phases of this case? I'd be willing to plow through the pleadings to get to some facts - because this entire matter has been far too much opinion and conjecture, and that's getting really old.
I would have agreed with you if this case were a couple of years ago and there was some settlement money left. He has turned down large sums of money (many millions of dollars) offered by various people to give over custody to her parents. If he really were all about money, why did he not take the fattest offer, lock in a confidentiality agreement and then change his name to Michael Smith? The other angle is that he and the Schindlers have been attacking one another so long now they have painted themselves into corners and he is unwilling to back off.
Sorry, I absolutely can not get into his head, so I am just offering guesses here. I will certainly agree that something really stinks about the whole situation.
Wally,
Here is a link to a Web site that may be helpful:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
It is all about the legal aspects of the case and minimizes the emotional melodrama.
Best of luck!
Reb
I've found some links that were posted by other than Terri's family. Former Military Chick posted some--search for her name, and you'll find some of the links.
It's harder to find the links that are not FIGHT FOR TERRI TO LIVE. But they're there. Makes for interesting reading, if only to hear another viewpoint.
it's really not about michael schiavo's motives at all. it's a bout a just government's responsibility to protect the weak and uphold the inalienable right to life.
How about the theory that he caused her disability in the first place and he doesn't want her to recover any communication ability to accuse him. One doctor said on Hannity and Colmes that her parents had wanted her to leave him. He is determined that she should die. He's getting the State to put her to death. This is diabolical and it is beyond reason to suggest that someone who has deserted his wife and lived with another woman for ten years is acting out of deep love for the woman he deserted.
I am reading it but it is sooooooo long and my eyes are beginning to cross.
I promise I will finish reading it eventually but I want to know right now what it said.
Guardians of patient in persistent vegetative state brought declaratory judgment action seeking judicial sanction of their wish to terminate artificial hydration and nutrition for patient. The Circuit Court, Jasper County, Probate Division, Charles E. Teel, Jr., J., directed state employees to cause request of guardians to be carried out. Appeal was taken. The Missouri Supreme Court, 760 S.W.2d 408, reversed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that: (1) the United States Constitution did not forbid Missouri from requiring that clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent's wishes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment; (2) state Supreme Court did not commit constitutional error in concluding that evidence adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of patient's desire to cease hydration and nutrition; and (3) due process did not require state to accept substituted judgment of close family members absent substantial proof that their views reflected those of patient.
Still could you tell me in real simple language what it said. For some reason I am not getting the bottom line.
Did Renquist say the parents could remove her feeding tube and starve her to death or did he say they could not?
Like I said, I can not get into his head, so I have no way of knowing what his real motive or motives are. Just a gut feeling: there is no single motive, but a lot of factors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.