I guess I am all naively astonished about the shittiness of the mainstream media. What the fuck?
That's just it. No matter how much (or how little) is published, there are complex human interactions and emotions involved here, and years of history and day-to-day decisions that can't be summed up in one article. And it would seem like now that she's dead, it's not worth the trouble for them to go into detail.
I just kept feeling, over the last thirteen days, that no matter how much I thought I knew about this case, I would never know everythign I needed (or wanted) to know. I can't know exactly what Michael Schiavo is thinking or feeling, or Terri's parents. I can't see her in person, or the results of her medical testing. The media can be a dangerous thing, because they can only offer so much information.
It's maybe positive that this case raised consciousness of the need for living wills and directives, but I just keep thinking Terri was one woman, a real live human being, not a test case or a hypothetical, and the furor raised over this seemed to give everyone all over the country just enough grist for their personal mill, without any of us really being able to help her personally, or know for sure what this woman would have wanted.
That was probably an incoherent ramble, but I've been so back and forth about all of this -- no matter what side I come at it from, there's no good or easy answer. And now Terri's dead. I hope she is resting in peace, and her family, Michael included, can find some, too.
I think MSNBC is a little better than CNN...
If Congress and the legislators in Florida made anything very clear over the past few years of fighting about Schiavo’s fate it is that they have no idea what they are talking about.
After the spectacle of senators second-guessing diagnoses without benefit of any solid information, a governor introducing people as experts who lacked real credentials or hands-on experience, state legislators giving the spotlight to anyone who had any claim — no matter how blatantly screwy — about how to cure those who are severely brain injured, there is not a legislature in America that is ready to say or do anything useful about the right to stop treatment.
If legislators cannot stand inaction in the wake of what has just taken place then let them hold hearings in which those with claims to make are carefully cross-examined and the public given a chance to learn how conditions like permanent vegetative state and coma are diagnosed and why nearly every doctor, nurse and dietician in America knows that a feeding tube is a form of medical treatment.
[link]
Jon Stewart tore that bowtied twit Tucker Carlson a new one on CNN.
One of the shining moments of broadcast information dissemination.
"Be funny."
"I'm not your monkey."
"The show that comes on before me is puppets making crank calls! You're CNN!"
That ep should be required viewing in journalism schools.
It's maybe positive that this case raised consciousness of the need for living wills and directives, but I just keep thinking Terri was one woman, a real live human being, not a test case or a hypothetical, and the furor raised over this seemed to give everyone all over the country just enough grist for their personal mill, without any of us really being able to help her personally, or know for sure what this woman would have wanted.
One part I can know for sure is that she wouldn't have wanted the media circus that surrounded her fate.
It is good that many people made sure their wishes are now documented.
This also served to scare a few people and open their eyes about the new role that our elected officials wish to take in running our lives, and deaths.
More urgently of note, Jessica needs to post right after me to coordinate our tags properly.
I'm glad to hear Emmett had an easy time in surgery! And IVs are a pain, I agree.
Congrats StuntHusband! I was just wondering how the interview went. Damn well, it appears!
(eta: I hereby apologize for neither being Jessica nor having her tag)
I certainly hope everyone involved in that family finds some peace now. My thought on the case, is that there is a reason why court after court ruled the way they did. That's the job of the courts, to figure out how the law applies to a particular case.
No matter how much (or how little) is published, there are complex human interactions and emotions involved here, and years of history and day-to-day decisions that can't be summed up in one article.
I think that lets them off
way
too easily. What precisely is their reason for being if not to present complex matters and circumstances, and when did we and they start buying the idea that "he said/she said" is an adequate substitute for an evaluation of the merits of the claims on both sides?
when did we and they start buying the idea that "he said/she said" is an adequate substitute for an evaluation of the merits of the claims on both sides?
That's been going on for awhile now. (Can't nail down a date, but I think it started when all the media companies started consolidating in the '80s and '90s.)
Paul Krugman has a joke that if the Republicans came out and said the world was flat, and the Democrats responded by saying that wansn't true, the newspaper headlines would read, "The Shape of the World - Two Opposing Views."
I think that lets them off way too easily.
Well, yes and no. I think the coverage here was often slanted one way or the other, but I also agree with Gud -- the courts are designed to decide cases like this, and did so, usually with the same rulings time after time. But the media offered bits and pieces, some of which seemed purposely offered to spark debate.
My rather incoherent point was both, I guess, that the reporting should have been more objective and more complete, but also that without having peronsal knowledge of some of the pieces of this case (i.e. interaction with Terri herself, and/or a boatload of medical knowledge) it would be hard for any one in the general public to truly know what's gone on, and what the best possible outcome would be.
