...........................................
The Chronicle online (The Independent Daily at Duke University), has an interesting article, "Times Lax Coverage Comes Under Scrutiny" by Iza Wojciechowska (April 24, 2007). An article that focuses on the Time's coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case, but also one that can be applied when thinking of the coverage of other cases as well.
From the article...
"I think The Times' coverage was heartbreaking," said Daniel Okrent, who served as the first public editor of The Times from October 2003 to May 2005. "I understand why they jumped on the story when they did, but it showed everything that's wrong with American journalism."
Another quote...
"But even as criticisms of The Times' coverage began to emerge, the paper continued to provide coverage in the same vein.
And then...
"Despite the persistent criticism from other journalists, the blogosphere and the general public, The Times continued to stand behind its coverage and defend its decisions throughout the case's development."
In my opinion, all of these quotes used (and many not) could be referring to the Time's coverage of the Terri Schiavo case as well. It's amazing how similar it all is. Amazing how the Times, and other mainstream media, painted an inaccurate picture of Terri Schiavo and her case, and refused to make corrections when called on it. Amazing how they were standing behind their coverage in spite of any proof presented that their information was flawed. What's it matter if the reader is led to believe a person is brain dead, rather than brain damaged? Life and death for one thing!
I don't know how many times I heard people swear on wrongful information because they had read it in the Times or like publications. As was said in Wojciechowska's article...
"'A lot of people think The New York Times is a bible of what really happened,' Taylor said. 'I think an awful lot of people have been misled by The New York Times coverage and either didn't pay attention to what critics were saying or shrugged it off-'Who am I going to believe, The New York Times or some no-name critic in the blogosphere?'"
Once the Times, and other mainstream media, stated as fact that Terri Schiavo was brain dead and on life-support, they created the picture of a body being kept alive by machines. A body that couldn't survive without the machines and that once they were switched off, that would be the end of it. And that picture is what formed many an opinion in the Schiavo case.
Even a few months ago, someone said that Terri was brain dead and all her husband wanted to do was let her body go. After all, she would never be able to get off all those machines. I asked, "All of what machines?" This person was under the impression that Terri was on machines that helped her breathe and kept her heart beating. It was a shock for this person to learn that the "life-support" was merely a feeding tube. The person was very upset and saying, "But the news said..."
Many have been in a position of having to make a decision about letting a loved one go. As a result, many based their opinion of Terri's situation on their experience and what they believed were the facts in the case. Likewise, many based their opinion on who was allegedly fighting to save Terri and why these people were doing so. Didn't the media often spark people being called things such as: zealots, and right wing this and that, and religious fanatics, pro-life fanatics and so forth? Was it ever included (clearly) in the coverage that there were atheists, agnostics, non-Christians, liberals, disability groups and so forth that were fighting in the cause as well? Had that been covered adequately, might people have had an entirely different opinion about what was going on and why it was going on? Maybe they would have looked a little closer and found that people were fighting to save the life of a brain damaged woman -- not a brain dead one.
Some in the media speak of the public's right to know. In response, I feel it is the public's right to be given true and accurate information, not a story painted to suggest it is something other than it is. But just like with the Duke lacrosse case, Terri's was not reported fairly. Wojciechowska's article says it well (with regard to the Duke lacrosse case), ""[It] was the worst single piece of journalism I've ever seen in long form in a newspaper," Taylor said in an interview with The Chronicle. He added that many of the paper's articles-most of which were written by Wilson-were pro-Nifong and downplayed much of the defense's evidence.
"About the time Nifong dropped the rape charges [Dec. 22], they brought in a more serious reporter, and their coverage began to sound more like a newspaper and less like a propaganda organ for a transparently abusive prosecutor," Taylor added.
"Propaganda organ"! Good term. Perhaps that is what we should rename the mainstream media that dares to represent itself as a news media, while failing to provide true and accurate facts that actually do affect lives. After all, how many are dead or destroyed as the result of the poor journalism? Instead of adding to the latter victim group, maybe it is time to get back to journalism with a topping of ethics and pride in providing fair and accurate coverage. Maybe it is time for accountability!
News Media or Propaganda Organ?
8mm
