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."

More urgently of note, Jessica needs to post right after me to coordinate our tags properly.

Ready? Go!

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.

Ready? Go!

Now earwormed with Blue Man Group.

"The Shape of the World - Two Opposing Views."

This problem has been exacerbated by the Republican machine of late, as well. They've got some notoriety for playing favorites among media outlets on basis of who is most flattering. I mean, probably all parties do this, bank on their power while they've got it I mean, but it's a much more organized, top-down, systematic effort this time around than during, say, the incredibly haphazard Clinton years.

Of course, also, because the party has a strict organization, all of its apparatchiks use the same talking points, and it becomes really hard to get any actual insight. But that's not a reason for news organizations not to try.

I just hope no one I care about ever becomes a test case, or a cause celebe. Family tragedies are hard enough without being in the news, or Congress.

Relatedly, last night's Daily Show rerun was the one with Colbert as an ethicist talking about Congress's "separation.....and POWER."

Emily, I don't know if it's too late, but finding statistical correlation is the kind of thing I learned in college, not high school.

The song in my head:

Cat's in the cradle with the silver moon
Little Boy Blue and the man in the moon
When you comin' home, Dad?
I don't know when, but we'll get together then
You know we'll have a good time then

That song is so sad....