WO'C Archive: October 27, 2003 by s.z.

Stunning Bias

Here's Mickey Kaus with his piece about the terrible one-sidedness of "All Things Considered" (NPR in a Coma). Alas, he doesn't do any better in HIS recitation of relevant facts. I guess that's the trouble with needing to get angry when you can't find anything to be angry about -- you have to avoid looking at the fact if you want to stay angry:

What's a complacent centrist do when he needs to be angry but can't find anything to be angry about? Simple: He listens to NPR! All Things Considered, in particular, rarely fails to come through. On Wednesday, I needed to come up with a "rant" for a scheduled radio appearance--and, presto, ATC delivered with a stunningly biased and condescending report on the Schiavo "right to die" case. "Bias" isn't quite the right word, actually. A biased report might interview all sides but slant the story to favor one point of view while quoting only unconvincing generalities from the other. That was Thursday's NPR Schiavo story. Wednesday's story transcended mere bias, covering the case as if the anti-death side didn't even exist, so there was no need to even try to find out what they were thinking. [Emphasis in the original, here and in all other bolded passages.]

I haven't written anything about this case because it is complex, and I didn't want to think that hard. But Mickey annoyed me, so you get this entry.

First, in my opinion, while NPR certainly had a right to focus on the the legal and ethical issues regarding the state's overriding of the court's decision, if Kaus is right about their total one-sidedness, then that wasn't good journalism.

But if you want to see something worse than bias, check out the religious right's (WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Concerned Women, etc.) coverage. Not only do they make the story one of a "disabled" woman whose husband wants to legally kill her for her settlement money, but they claim that he had been trying to cause her "accidental" death for years, and they are now hinting that said husband causing the injury which resulted in her initial brain damage. (They don't believe that a woman her age could have heart attack brought on by an electrolyte imbalance, and are saying darkly that a 1991 bone scan shows that she suffered a head injury, her family knows who caused, that the authorities should investigate it, and that this should be reason enough not to let her husband be her guardian.)

But yes, NPR should be more responsible than the religious right. But since Kaus is accusing NPR of presenting only part of the information, shouldn't HE have researched things thouroughly, checking information from both sides, beforing writing his piece?

Well, there is evidence that he didn't. He has posted an update later yesterday with a link to a the blog of a Catholic Priest who is helping Schiavo's parents in their legal battle, which he says is "A useful counterweight to NPR." He claims he "can't find a pro-husband blog." He he did find Abstract Appeal, which presents what seems to be a fair and balanced account of the case; Kaus says that it has "lots of information, much of it favorable to Michael," and that their info "prompted a non-trivial correction" about just who decided that feeding tube should be removed (the judge, not Michael).

Um, that IS a non-trivial correction, and I'm glad he posted it, but there are still several other points that Kaus gets wrong and which show his bias. Let's look at some of them:

He [Dr. Sherwin Nuland, whom Kaus earlier dubs "death maven"] suggests that probably "no member of that family would want to be exposed to what this woman is being exposed to. ... [T]hey inflict it on her not because of her needs, in fact, but because of their own." Hey, same to you, Doc! Have I missed something? Is Terri Schiavo in pain? If not, is it crazy or even unusual to choose to keep on being fed and comforted in that situation, on the longshot chance of a recovery--assuming, that is, one is only considering one's own "needs"? ...

Notice to All Potential Mickey Kaus "Surrogates"-- If I'm ever in Terri Schiavo's situation, and not in any pain, please follow these simple steps: Keep the feeding tube in, and keep Dr. Nuland out.

DID Kaus miss something? IS Terri Schiavo in pain?

Could be. While Mr. Schiavo doesn't have a blog, there ARE newspapers and magazines out there which contain various facts about the case -- Kaus should consider reading some of them. For instance, there's the Chicago Tribune article Awareness Hard to Confirm, which says in part:

There is also no good way to determine if a patient in a persistent vegetative state feels pain or suffers.
"In terms of what exactly a patient is aware of you can't quite know what he is thinking," said Dr. Jeffrey Frank, director of neurointensive care at the University of Chicago.
"What you can do is know the extent of the brain injury and understand that if they have any kind of awareness it might be very primitive."
That raises the question of whether a patient suffers more by having some type of minimal awareness of being bedridden, kept alive artificially and unable to connect to his environment, or by being allowed to die.
"Their discomforts may be very primitive and poorly understood by the patient depending on the extent of their brain injury," Frank said. "But patients do suffer. I would say they suffer more by the life-sustaining kind of treatments than they would from just being allowed to die peacefully."

Are you so sure you want to keep the feeding tube in, Mickey? It mgiht mean 30 years of needless suffering?

And what about that "longshot chance of recovery" -- just how good are the odds? The NY Times discusses this issue in In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts (note: they also presented the statement of a neurologist who testified for Terri's parents -- the NY Times is good that way):

"Thirteen years is plenty long enough to tell," said Dr. Bernat [a Dartmouth College neurologist and former chairman of the American Academy of Neurology's ethics committee], who said he had not examined Mrs. Schiavo or seen any videotapes.
"Assuming she is in a vegetative state, I can say with medical certainty that there is no realistic hope that she'll recover."

But haven't there been cases of people suddenly coming out of a state like this? Back to the NYT:

Dr. Bernat was part of a large medical panel that in 1994 assessed thousands of patients' records and found that up to 35,000 Americans were in persistent vegetative states. Mrs. Schiavo's parents and a Web site, terrisfight.org, have cited "miracle recoveries" by people who supposedly woke up, speaking and moving, after years in comas.
Dr. Bernat said his 1994 panel looked into more than 70 "alleged late recoverers" and found that "there wasn't a single one that was verified, so I'm very skeptical."
Dr. Ron Cranford, a Minneapolis neurologist who was Dr. Bernat's predecessor on the academy ethics committee, examined Mrs. Schiavo as part of the original trial and testified in favor of her husband's request to discontinue feeding. He was adamant that she would never get better. [snip] "The CAT scans indicate a massive shrinkage of her brain, with its higher centers completely destroyed, which indicates irreversibility."
Dr. McQuillen of the University of Rochester added that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive artificially could be a burden on her. For many terminally ill patients, he pointed out, "food is an absolute burden — it increases secretions and makes them uncomfortable."

So, Mrs. Schiavo may be in pain. The feeding tube may be causing her distress. And she is never going to get better. So, who's needs ARE being served by keeping her alive?

And then Kaus goes into this:

Given the actual facts in the Schiavo case, I'm not sure which side I support. It's nice that, as Dahlia Lithwick describes, bioethicists, lawyers and judges have settled on clear rules (e.g. "the husband decides as the 'surrogate'"). But does this rule really make such great sense? Husbands, as a class, seem much more likely to have a Darwinian conflict of interest than parents. (Basic evolutionary psychology: Men tend to want to start second families even when their wives aren't in persistent vegetative states.)

Um, Mickey, as you pointed out in your correction, the HUSBAND DIDN'T DECIDE AS THE SURROGATE. The JUDGE did. The judge presumably didn't need to get Mrs. Schaivo out of the way to raise as many second families as he wanted, so Darwinian conflict of interest isn't an issue here, is it?

Even apparently sensible clear rules can be twisted into perversities, especially when there are powerful social forces pushing them in that direction. (I remember when you had to show physical abuse to get a divorce in some states. Suddenly it became suspiciously easy to get a judicial finding of physical abuse. Couldn't the same thing happen with a judicial finding of "persistent vegetative state" and "what X would have wanted"?)

But the judge DIDN'T decide the "persisent vegetative state, the DOCTORS did. And if your point is that the judge could have ruled in the husband's favor because of "social forces" pushing him to help Mr. Schiavo get out of an unwelcome marriage, what about the VAST social forces being weilded by the religious right? The latter is easy to prove -- show me some evidence of the former. You'd think that someone traying to show that he's more fair and less biased than NRP would present both social forces if he was going to bring up the issue.

The miraculous consensus of "decades of legal and ethical decisionmaking" sometimes seems like a conspiracy of convenience. I gag when NPR commentators glibly talk about upholding Terri Schiavo's "right to die" as if she herself had exercised that right--e.g. by writing a living will--as opposed to having her husband attempt to have that "right" exercised for her when she's unable to contradict him.

Mr. Kaus, if you had read the information at that legal site where you realized your mistake about who acted as the surrogate for Mrs. Schiavo, you would have also seen that it wasn't just the husband who presented evidence as to Terri's wishes in this matter of not wanting to linger this way -- the judge weighed the totality of the information, which also includes what her family and a friend said about her wishes. The judge ruled in favor of the husband. Somebody who wanted to avoid being one-sided would probably mention this.

Both sides have a point. That's exactly what NPR won't concede. How are people supposed to make up their minds if the assumption is that one side doesn't even deserve a hearing?

Very good question. And Mr. Kaus, how does your presentation of a "biased report [which] might interview all sides but slant the story to favor one point of view" make things any better?

Just a tip: in the future, Mickey, don't let your need for anger keep you from doing some research, even it the research does tend to damper that righteous indignation.

6:42:40 AM

Want to See Something Really Scary?

Oh, and here's one more thing I read at the Halloween page at the CBN site: Freedom from Demon Bondage. It teaches us that

Demon bondage can be brought about when an individual is possessed, oppressed, or is in rebellion towards God (sins of the flesh). It takes God's discernment to determine which of these is producing the bondage in an individual's life. The Bible makes it clear that there are demons, or evil spirits, in the world that interfere in people's lives (Ephesians 6:11-19).

So, how can you tell if you or someone else is possessed by demons? No, head-spinning, pea-soup vomiting, or a job as an AM radio host aren't the tell-tale signs. Here are some of the "Indications of Demon Activity" from the CBN site:

The following areas may help you to recognize your need for being released from demonic oppression, possession or bondages of the flesh (sin):
Sexual perversion and immorality (homosexuality, molestation, etc.);
A compulsion to abuse your body (drugs, alcohol, gluttony, abuse or misuse of other substances, etc.);
Seeking spiritual knowledge through Eastern religions and other counterfeit religious groups (TM, Yoga, humanism, etc.);
Involvement in occult practices (fortune-telling, Satanism, etc.);
Mental distress or oppression (anxiety, fear, anger, disorientation, etc.);
Psychological disorders (split and multiple personalities, paranoia, etc.);
Physical disorders may be demon caused (Matthew 9:32, 33).

So, you're a compulsive overeater? You're possessed by demons. You're taking a a yoga class or practicing meditation? Demons. You're angry or anxious? Demons again. And of course homosexuality is a sure sign that you're demon-possessed.

While that part of their message is kind of amusing IMHO, I find it both scary and dangerous that this site teaches that mental illness and some physical disorders are "demon caused." and that the way to rid yourself of the demons to pray for forgiveness. You'd hope we had made some progress in medical science since the middle ages, but apparently not.

So, what if you prayed and you're still schizophrenic (or, have a "split personality," as they so quaintly title it)?

If You Can't Pray In Victory

First, you need to be sure your problem is not a fleshly, willful one on your part. Take a bold, fearless inventory of yourself. You must choose whom you will serve; self and fleshly desire, Satan or God? Repent of all sinful desires.

And if you are STILL mentally ill, well, you're just not trying hard enough, and you are still choosing Satan.

After you have repented and asked for forgiveness, accept God's assurance that you are a child of God and have been forgiven.

Yeah, even if the demons made you molest somebody, you're all forgiven now, and all healed. No need to seek any outside help or get the authorities involved.

If you need further help, the elders of the church can pray and minister to you (James 5:14,15). Also, counselors at CBN 700 Club can pray with you by telephone.

Um, yeah, they can. And they want me to donate a minium of $20 a month to keep these phone counselors praying away. But when I looked through their list of the miracles their phone counselors have been involved with, I noticed that curing schizophrenia or child molestation weren't there.

Bottom line: teaching that mental illness is caused by demons (or rebellion or sin), and that it can be cured if you just pray and repent hard enough, is just so wrong. Equating homosexuality with "molestation" isn't much better. And putting this message on a board about Halloween does everybody a disservice. Including God.

3:06:49 AM

comment []

But No Matter How Good Your Mask, GOD Will Know You!

Continuing our Halloween theme, we scoured the news sources, and have info on the hot costumes this season.

For kids, the top picks are what you'd expect: cartoon figures (Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob Squarepants, Bob the Builder); movie heroes (Spiderman, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean); and sluts (Barbie Cheerleader).

Adults also want to be movie characters (Gandalf from "Lord of the Rings", Austin Powers, "Matrix" characters, "Wizard of Oz" characters); superheroes (Wonder Woman, the Incredible Hulk); and sluts (the Osbournes, pimps, Little Bo-Peep). Other popular choices are inflatable costumes (um, we don't want to know what part inflates), and anything Goth or satanic. ("Hellvis," for instance, is an Elvis costume with a red satin jumpsuit and devil horns.)

Also, "Parts Played by Arnold Schwarzenegger" are very big this year. Sadly, retailers didn't think he'd be popular (they wisely anticipated that "T3" wasn't going to make a big impact on consumers, but who could predict he'd be governor?), and so Arnold masks are not available.

Well, the Contra Costra Times (Being Arnold) does have a nice one you can download, print, and wear on the 31st, allowing you to grope the night way, consequences-free.

And it's versatile too! As the CC Times says:

The beauty of this particular mask is that it's a fine foundation for at least 100 different costumes. No need to worry about being just another Arnold when you can dress it up as any of the movie roles in his varied career. For proof, look no further than "The Villain," where Arnold makes a cheesy cowboy costume look great.

If you're a little more ambitious, try making a Mr. Freeze outfit out of tinfoil, pie pans, and Christmas ornaments; wear it with some tights and an iron cod piece and you'll be the belle of the ball! (we suggest reviewing our Subliminal Cinema summary of Batman and Robin, since it has a photo that can help you get the look just right, and movie tips to help you with that "I'm such a big star that you don't DARE say I look like a perverted Tinman from the WIZARD OF OZ" Mr. Freeze" attitude).

The CC Times also has a little "Guide to Austrian accents" which should help you sound as good as you look.

For another cheap costume, go to the British site Burning Bush and download and print their George Bush mask. They are urging their countrymen to put the mask on their "Guy" (the effigy Brits burn in bonfires on Guy Fawkes Day), as a form of political protest against Bush's planned visit to the UK, and also Bush's continued existance in general. But there's nothing stopping YOU from using the mask for Halloween purposes -- just add a suit and a Secret Service Agent, and you're ready for trick or treating. But take the mask off before November 5th or the Brits may burn you.

And speaking of Guy Fawkes Day, our minimal research (we went to Guy Fawkes and Bonfire Night) revealed that it wasn't long after the failed "Gunpowder Plot" (Guy Fawkes and his Catholic co-conspirators planned to blow up the House of Commons, but he was caught, tortured, and executed before anything much happened) that people began placing effigies onto bonfires. Fireworks were soon added to the celebrations.

Effigies of Guy Fawkes, and sometimes those of the Pope, graced the pyres. Still today, some communities throw dummies of both Guy Fawkes and the Pope on the bonfire (and even those of a contemporary politician or two), although the gesture is seen by most as a quirky tradition, rather than an expression of hostility towards the Pope.

But you haven't heard of anybody blowing up the House of Commons lately, have you? I suggest that General Rumsfeld and his new Anti-Terror Thought Agency consider using effigies and bonfires as a way to encourage kids not to be terrorists. Not only would the kids really enjoy it, but part of the tradition could be that the kids have to fill their effigies with leaves they've raked off the lawns of their neighbors, making it also very popular with neighbors. Plus, the fireworks manufacturers would be very grateful for a new official fireworks holiday, and would probably also vow to stay away from terrorism too.

The World O' Crap Archive

Monday, December 27, 2010

October 27, 2003 by s.z.

No comments:

Post a Comment