How Media Falsehoods Become Postmodern Reality
Ramesh Ponnuru's book Party of Death is reviewed in today's New York Times. The reviewer Jonathan Rauch, predictably, discounts the book, claiming that for people in the middle of the abortion debate, it doesn't have much to say. I don't agree with that opinion, as my own review of Ponnuru's book makes clear.
But our disagreement about the merits of Ponnuru's book is not what this blog entry is about. I write about Ruach's review because it is a classic example of the power of media to create an alternative reality by misstating the facts about important stories, which over time, due to the sheer power of repetition, has the effect of literally rewriting history.
Specifically, Rauch presents a fictionalized scenario about the Terri Schiavo case. According to Rauch: "If human life is 'inviolable," then why should it matter whether a hopelessly vegetative patient--someone like Terri Schiavo--left instructions not to be fed? Surely, from Ponnuru's perspective, the doctors caring for her cannot ethically conspire to starve her to death even if she would prefer to die."
The ethics of this matter definitely need clarifying, but let's not discuss that for now. What I am interested in here is the material misstatement of fact. Notice how easily the lie slides by--that Terri "left instructions not to be fed." She did no such thing. Not even Michael Schiavo claimed she said not to give her food and water if she became profoundly brain injured.
At most, she made vague statements, mostly in very casual settings, about not wanting tubes and machines. But if these statements were actually made--remember it was only Michael Schiavo and his family that said so--she made the statements at a time before feeding tubes were being routinely removed from people with profound cognitive impairments. Thus, it was highly unlikely that she ever considered being dehydrated to death. Indeed, the casual statements, if they were made, came before the landmark Cruzan case that opened the floodgates to dehydrating the cognitively impaired. (I trust Rauch and his editors were merely ignorant about this and did not intentionally mislead readers, which ironically, proves my point.)
Such media malpractice is epidemic. And it has led me to the reluctant conclusion that for most of today's mainstream media, facts don't matter. What counts is the narrative; the desired story line. In such a postmodernist milieu--as in Schiavo-- fiction quickly becomes fact and myth is transformed into history. No wonder respect for journalism is at an all time low.


9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have added a penned note to my advance directive (which said, "Please don't wake me up to ask me"). I would like ice chips and chocolate put on my tongue and lips.
The decision that Terri should die by refusing oral hydration was spousal abuse. The judge's support of that decision and backing it with Sheriff's deputies and threats of jail, rather than allowing ice chips and moist cloths was also abusive. The many judges who had the opportunity to review the actions of Greer in the case just piled it on.
Acquinas: Which is why it is especially crucial for media to get it right, and when they make mistakes, which can happen in perfectly good faith, to quickly correct the record in a way commiserate with the way the original wrong story is presented.
Thanks.
Rauch got it right -- the fight over Schiavo was ultimately about "whether" she left instructions not to be fed, which is exactly how Rauch characterized it. Rauch's point is that whether she did or didn't leave such directions doesn't matter if guiding your principle on such issues is "inviolability of life". I think you owe Rauch, your readers, and, yes, the "mainstream media", an apology.
should have been "your guiding principle" not "guiding your principle"...sorry.
No, it is YOU, spaceboy, who is mischaracterizing the Schiavo case.
Terri Schiavo left NO directive at all about whether she wanted to be kept alive "artificially," not about "being fed." The entire issue revolved around that matter, and it was her lying husband who had his brother and sister-in-law perjure themselves to support his contention she made some off-handed remarks about "life support."
There should not be ANY law whatsoever that would allow hearsay "evidence" to be used in a guardianship case to kill a ward. Perjury is too easy here, and it was done in this case.
Only a fool thinks Michael Schiavo and his relatives told the truth.
Spaceboy here: I don't think they did tell the truth. My point was that even if they did, what they testified to was not what the book reviewer wrote. Back to you, Spacegirl.
I believe you are mis-parsing this sentence. Which is understandable: I think Rauch left just enough ambiguity in it to make your interpretation plausible.
If human life is 'inviolable,' then why should it matter whether a hopelessly vegetative patient--someone like Terri Schiavo--left instructions not to be fed?
In the sentence, "Terri Schiavo" is an examplar of "a hopelessly vegetative patient." In parallel, Rauch is proposing a hypothetical scenario in which "a hopelessly vegetative patient... left instructions not to be fed."
Of course, the first assertion is also arguable. (Much less so, I think.)
Possibly, but Rauch goes on to discuss Terri as if she had so instructed. But I agree that your interpretation is also valid. Thanks for writing. WJS
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home