Mother Teresa released from prison

June 6, 2007 By

jackkevorkian 01Jack Kevorkian, the former pathologist and convicted murderer, was released from prison last week. It’s been interesting to see how the mainstream media have treated him and the euthanasia issue he is associated with. They’ve largely touted him as a compassionate, passionate doctor who helped terminally ill people in need of being put out of their misery. Any voices, such as those in the disability advocate group Not Dead Yet, that note that most of those who were killed with Kevorkian’s help weren’t terminally ill so much as disabled or depressed — were silenced.

60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace hugged Kevorkian upon his release from prison. Hugged him. Of course, 60 Minutes edited that affection out of the final broadcast. Wallace might not be the best choice for the interview, considering he’s been an advocate of Kevorkian and made the decision to air the original snuff film of Kevorkian murdering a man with Lou Gehrig’s disease.

60 Minutes‘ story was anything but journalism. It was embarrassing. I’m not exaggerating. He literally asked this question:

“You’re a happy man, aren’t you?” Wallace asks.

It’s really hard to see why some people think the media are biased on human life issues, isn’t it? Can you imagine the ridicule a reporter would face for asking asked Dick Cheney that question? The interview was so bad and so fluffy that Kevorkian had to ask Wallace to toughen up:

“I want you to live up to your reputation,” Kevorkian tells Wallace.

“What’s that, tough?” Wallace asked

“You’ve got to strafe me,” Kevorkian says.

“Oh, all right,” Wallace remarks. “You regret helping Tom Youk?

Oh. My. Goodness. Disgusting and scandalous. So Wallace is asked to be tough — by his subject — and he comes up with a question that refers to the murder of Tom Youk as help? I understand that certain people believe some lives aren’t worth living and that people with these lives should be killed and that such killing should be protected by the state. I get that. But Kevorkian was convicted of murdering Tom Youk. That Mike Wallace sees the ending of a man’s life as helping him says a lot about mainstream coverage of this and other cases of people ending others’ lives. No matter what your perspective, the question is anything but balanced.

Of course, Wallace is just a more extreme version of what happened in most stories about Kevorkian. Reporters steadfastly avoided the use of the wordkill to describe a convicted murderer who has admitted to helping kill 130 people. They chose the term “physician-assisted suicide” or “assisted suicide.” I think the latter term is fine, but both are euthanasia euphemisms. Whether you support people killing themselves or killing other people for various reasons is irrelevant. Avoiding the term for what’s happening is silly, though. We don’t deny that some people on death row are killed, even if there are conflicting views about whether such killing is morally permissible.

There were also few opposing views in articles. No articles mentioned any of the significant criticism of Kevorkian’s views or writings, such as his support for vivisection. Many mentioned religious opposition, although few delved into the issue. The New York Times‘ Monica Davey had this brief mention:

In recent days, religious leaders and opponents of assisted suicide have expressed outrage at Mr. Kevorkian’s release from prison and at the avalanche of publicity that has followed. Ned McGrath, an official with the Archdiocese of Detroit, which represents 1.4 million Roman Catholics, issued a statement comparing Mr. Kevorkian’s actions to those of a “pathological serial killer.”

All in all, the religious coverage of this issue — which couldn’t be more imbued with religious drama — was lacking. Did any of you see any particularly good or bad coverage of the issue?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Politics, Social Issues
  • Jeffrey Weiss

    I guess you missed Art Caplan’s column. I dunno how much play it got out of cyberspace, though. I have a link here.
    And here’s an excerpt:

    Kevorkian’s problem was and is that he likes death way too much. The enthusiasm he brought to his cause was always deeply troubling. No doubts, no ambivalence, ever seemed to cross his mind as he dispatched his victims. The fact that he helped some to die within hours of meeting them, the fact that he would turn a disabled man’s death into a national spectacle by giving a tape of his murder to “60 Minutes” – never mind that they used it! – and the fact that he never seemed to try particularly hard to talk those who came to him out of their decision to die made him morally suspect then and hardly worth hearing from now.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Jeffrey,

    We don’t look at opinion journalism here. Although I wish we did since the New York Times’ editorial board also criticized Kevorkian — but not for killing people. Rather, he wasn’t the right representative for the cause.

  • Martha

    This is what I find extraordinary: he’s a pathologist. He’s always been a pathlogist. He has never treated living people.

    I might understand an oncologist, say, espousing the right to euthanasia (though I would not agree), but a pathologist?

    And I note that he is said to be suffering from Hepatitis C and has only a year to live. If this is true, will we see him self-euthanize? Or will he, unlike the 130 people he sent out of this world, seek to die naturally?

    Why the hell is this man a hero of the press and not considered in the same light as Dr. Harold Shipman?

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Hm. Caplan is not exactly a random letter to the editor. He’s one of the top medical ethicists in the country and is often quoted in regular news stories. So if he’d been quoted by NBC, he’s be fit GR fodder but because it’s his own column on MSNBC it’s not? Besides, I’ve just done a GR search for David Broder, Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Friedman, John Allen. Came across a posting on South Park. Wandered across a post you made citing George Will when I searched for the word “column.”
    I don’t mean to bash you, Mollie…1:-[)> But the lines between opinion and not get blurrier by the day. And if GR really *did* leave out all of the opinion side, that would be ignoring some of the more important journalism being done about religion.

  • Eric G.

    Most of the coverage I’ve seen has been fairly routine. The AP coverage of Kevorkian’s release (example) did refer to him as “Dr. Death” in the lead, and that doesn’t exactly sound complimentary. The newspaper I work for used “Dr. Death” in the headline.

    On the other hand, if I had been writing the story I would have placed mention of his conviction for second-degree murder higher rather than burying it in the eighth graf.

    I have to disagree with Mollie about one thing: There is a legitimate distinction to be made between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and giving a person the means to commit suicide isn’t exactly the same thing as killing that person. I’m not supportive of assisted suicide by any means (I would have voted against Oregon’s law), I’m just saying are legal and/or factual distinctions between the two acts. Whether there are moral distinctions is another matter.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Jeffrey,

    I didn’t say Caplan was a random letter to the editor. I said we don’t cover opinion journalism here. Perhaps just to be safe I should say *I* don’t cover opinion journalism here. I don’t cover the opinions people are quoted as having WITHIN mainstream news stories except to comment on whether or not such views are handled appropriately by the reporters writing the stories. As in, do they quote people in a balanced way, do they set up the quote properly, do they quote opposing views to provide context, etc.

    So, for instance, I just quoted from a George Will column because he quoted Mencken making a comment about competence in journalism. I was just letting people know WHERE I’d found the quote. I wasn’t criticizing George Will’s column. Which I thought was horrible and made no sense, but that’s beside the point.

    In other words, Jeffrey, we cover you! Now, to be certain, we do occasionally go outside the normal mainstream media outlets to look at interesting articles in law journals or mention criticism of mainstream journalism found in other places.

    But I don’t cover the religious issues themselves — I cover how the mainstream media covers religious issues.

    Another note — John Allen sometimes writes as a reporter and sometimes writes as someone with opinions.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    The simple fact that Mike Wallace gleefully hugged Kevorkian upon his release, and is the one who is designated by CBS to do a “60 Minutes” interview with him should open the eyes of any person with even one brain cell about the way the elite MSM has become a propagandizing arm for all things Left and Liberal whenever possible in both religion and politics.

  • Stephen A.

    I find Wallace’s personal involvement with his interview subject to be a huge conflict of interest.

  • Bob

    Martha, you’re a breath of fresh air. No one seems to recall what a pathologist *treats*. He treats nothing. No one ever makes an appointment to see a pathologist. He doesn’t have a bedside manner with his patients, he has a slabside manner. He deals with corpses, organs removed for examination and microfine slices of people, living or dead. Kevorkian can only deal with people when he can hurry them along to the only way he can ever imagine them; dead. If you listen to what he says on any subject other than death it becomes clear he has never fit in to any civilization. Without death he wouldn’t have a life.

  • Larry Rasczak

    Mollie,

    I agree with everything you say here, and I love the fact you don’t pull any punches!

    However, to be honest, when I see you saying that Mike Wallace and CBS News are biased fools who lack the ethics God gave an average garden snake, my response is “This is news how?” The rampant bias of CBS News was obvious back during the Tet Offensive.

    (Personally I think this has a lot to do with the fact less than 2% of Americans watch them anymore. I believe Ms. Couric came in 5.5m viewers last time I saw the numbers on Drudge. In fact, given the demographics of the CBS Evening News one has to wonder how many of these “viewers” are really viewing the program. It is entirely possible that a large segment of their “viewers” are actually elderly folks who lived alone and died while the T.V. was on. Nielsen could go on counting them for weeks or months until someone notices something and their bodies are discovered… but I digress.)

    In any case I agree that Mike Wallace has all the moral clarity of a mud puddle and if he tells you that 2+2=4 it is probaly wise to get out a calculator and double check to make sure that he didn’t fudge the numbers. Sure his conduct here is reprehensible, but that’s just buisness as usual for CBS news. I would expect nothing else from them.
    Most sentient beings have known CBS was untrustworthy and reprehensible since Nguyen Van Thieu was in office.

    So while I love your post, I have to say it sort of ranks up there with “Pope to Remain Catholic” in my view.

  • Jerry

    MSM has become a propagandizing arm for all things Left and Liberal whenever possible in both religion and politics.

    As a card carrying liberal, assisted suicide and euthanasia does not represent my values and I suspect the values of many liberals who value life.

    I wish we could stop labeling certain issues as liberal or conservative. It’s perfectly possible to be a pro-life liberal.

  • melissa

    About what Larry said …

    Notable point, but the fact that CBS has transgressed in the past, no matter how often, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address its unethical practices now. The network needs to be held accountable, just like any newspaper or reporter who consistently makes glaring errors in judgment.

  • Charlie

    Mollie, this is so obviously about bias- but yours so much more than anyone else’s. Shamefull.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Charlie,

    I presume you mean shameful, not shamefull. Either way, try substantiating your charge — in any way at all — if you want it to be taken seriously.

    Best,

    Mollie

  • Stephen A.

    Pointing out GLARING reporting bias – as when a reporter warmly embraces an interview subject and then lobs softballs so obvious that the subject is embarrassed by them – is completely legitimate and not at all “shameful,” Charlie.

    Jerry – perhaps it’s possible to be a pro-life liberal, but surely not common, and also, downright dangerous to be such a “heretic” in the Democratic Party, so much so as to be an endangered spieces (to mix metaphors horribly.)

  • Michael

    It’s really hard to see why some people think that the media is biased on human life issues, isn’t it. Can you imagine the ridicule a reporter would face if they asked Dick Cheney that question?

    If they take things as dramatically out of context as you just did, I’m not sure how credible their complaints really are. The man just got out of prison and acknowledged he was dying. While it may not be the kind of question you’d expect from an AP reporter, I thought it provided for an interesting TV moment between a subject and journalist with a long history.

    I’m symptathetic to the idea that “human life issues” people–whoever they are–feel their views aren’t represented in the media, but this kind of nit-picking and agenda-mongering doesn’t really help journalism as a whole. Because of this kind of criticism, there are already commenters on this blog who are convinced the weather and sports scores have a liberal bias. Journalism is harmed when criticism becomes so petty.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Michael,

    I’m assuming you’re being serious here so forgive me if I’m not getting your sarcasm.

    But what, exactly, is petty about anything I highlighted? Please tell me. I want to see you defend this journalism. How did I take ANYTHING out of context?

    Mollie

  • http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com Greg Popcak

    I can’t help but wonder if Mike Wallace’s well publicized, ongoing battle with clinical depression and suicidality doesn’t account for his sympathy for Kevorkian.

    I also can’t help wonder why the powers-that-be at 60 Minutes don’t see sending a reporter with a history of suicidal depression to glad-hand with the suicide doc to be a personal conflict of interest.

  • Michael

    The Wallace question occurs at a specific point in the interview, where Kevorkian is talking about being old and dying. These are two people who’ve known each other for over a decade, so the question doesn’t seem that odd to me. It’s a television question that would never make sense in a print story, but makes for an interesting question or moment in a television interview.

    As for the question about “helping” Youk, that is exactly what Kevorkian did. He also killed him. Now, I realize your specific agenda would have demanded the word “killed” but in the context of the interview, the word “helped” is not outrageous.

    I am not a huge Wallace fan or even a 60 Minutes fan, but your criticism seems more like axe-grinding than sincere criticism. That happens a lot when the issue is around the pro-life agenda.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Michael,

    I’m not persuaded by your criticism. One, I see no difference between questions that are appropriate for television versus print. Two, the question is just puffery. It doesn’t matter if you’ve covered a subject for a minute or a lifetime. “You’re a happy man, aren’t you?” is just not good journalism.

    As for the “helping” Youk question — I think that first and foremost YOU are taking something out of context. Remember, this is the first question Wallace asked after Kevorkian ASKED him to toughen up. If that’s your idea of a tough question, than I don’t really know what to say.

    As for whether or not Kevorkian “helped” Youk, that’s not for a journalist to say. You can opine that killing Youk helped him. But you can’t say — as you did — that Kevorkian helped him. That’s an opinion. It has no room in a piece of mainstream journalism.

    You CAN say he killed him. You can even say he murdered him, since he was convicted of just that by a jury of his peers.

    I do find it funny that people think I have an agenda on this issue since I don’t think my personal biases on the role for government with regard to this issue actually line up with what people think here. Let’s just say I’m influenced by Jonathan Rauch’s views of Hidden Law.

    But I am quite certain that this is bad journalism. Horrible journalism. And it’s basically indefensible without some seriously questionable views regarding journalism.

  • Michael

    But I am quite certain that this is bad journalism. Horrible journalism. And it’s basically indefensible without some seriously questionable views regarding journalism.

    I disagree. It’s not great journalism, but I see much worse everyday on Fox, CNN and the Washington Times. In the context of the interview, the questions and tone made sense. The man just got out of prison and said he was dying. He and Wallace have a long relationship. He’s went to prison because of 60 Minutes aired the tape of the killing. With that kind of background, the tone made sense.

    And the kinds of questions you ask for a television interview are going to be different than the kinds of questions you ask in a print interview. The reaction shot allows for a different kind of questioning.

    It was a specific kind of story. Maybe it shouldn’t have been a “personality profile,” but ultimately that’s what the story was.

  • Michael

    As for whether or not Kevorkian “helped” Youk, that’s not for a journalist to say. You can opine that killing Youk helped him. But you can’t say — as you did — that Kevorkian helped him. That’s an opinion. It has no room in a piece of mainstream journalism.

    So we can use pro-life propaganda terms like “partial-birth abortion” but we can’t use “help,” even when the dying man asked for . . . “help” in dying and signed consent forms?

    I may need a chart to keep track of this.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    So we can use pro-life propaganda terms like “partial-birth abortion” but we can’t use “help,” even when the dying man asked for . . . “help” in dying and signed consent forms?

    Michael, I’m pretty darn sure you don’t want to bring attention to the fact that you’re not writing a comment about how the term “Physician-Assisted Suicide” is pro-euthanasia propaganda. Remember, YOU are the person who thinks that the term partial-birth abortion — whatever else the term’s merits — should not be used because of your view that it is a propaganda term that originated among pro-life groups.

    How you could possibly not remain consistent while discussing a story that is riddled with the euphemism “physician-assisted suicide” — certainly no more a neutral term in this debate than the “partial-birth abortion” term you despise . . . well, let’s just say I think you’re better off not highlighting the inconsistencies in your argumentation.

    Anyway, do you honestly think that whether or not journalists use words like “help” for a story such as this is dependent on whether or not the patient asked for help in being killed? Really? That’s how we decide what terms to use? Yeah, you might need a chart if you think that’s how we decide what words to use in mainstream stories.

    Gosh, golly, gee-willickers — funny how a jury convicted this man of murder for nothing more than helping another man. Clearly there can be no journalistic problem with seeing “help” where a jury saw “murder.” Nope, nothing to see here with Dr. Kevorkian other than him helping a man and getting PUNISHED for it.

    Nope, nope, no mainstream media bias here, is there.

  • Rudy

    Good points, all. A few minutes on the interwebs revealed that the Presidential Council on Bioethics posted has multiple papers and discussions on “Aging and End of Life” issues. Anyone think of giving Dr. Pellegrino a holler? If not the explicitly pro-life camp, it would be interesting to hear what folks are saying at the federal level. For liberals, 60 Min. seems awfully fond of a Federalist approach to the issue…

    BTW, you misspelled Mother Teresa’s name. With the tenth anniversary of her death approaching, and with her canonization on the fast-track, we’ll be seeing a lot more of her in the news.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Rudy, Thanks for the correction. I fixed above.

  • Michael

    Anyway, do you honestly think that whether or not journalists use words like “help” for a story such as this is dependent on whether or not the patient asked for help in being killed? Really? That’s how we decide what terms to use? Yeah, you might need a chart if you think that’s how we decide what words to use in mainstream stories.

    Again, says the person who sees no problem using terms cooked up in a pro-life propaganda campaign. You insisted,
    in fact, that NOT using the term was evidence of bias.

    They talked about the fact that Kevorkian did time for murder. They showed excerpts from the trial. He was shown leaving prison. That was the point of the story, after all.

    In the context of the story–where Kevorkian all along insisted he was “helping” him die and where the guy and his family insisted he wanted “help”–I just don’t see the use of “help” to be so extreme and such an egregious breach of journalism ethics.

  • Ric

    Michael,

    Um, ok.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Michael,

    I think that our views related to proper journalism are so at odds that this discussion is becoming meaningless.

    I would happily respond to your characterization of my own views about terminology but would prefer some more order to this discussion.

    There’s an increasing number of points you have left unaddressed. You aren’t really responding substantively to any of my criticism and it’s degenerated to the point that it seems you’re not even going to respond to my point about your own inconsistency with regard to terminology.

    This frustrates me greatly and makes it so I think I must insist you wrap up some loose ends before going on to other points. Do you want to start by addressing your inconsistency?

  • Michael

    I don’t see how I can address my inconsistency until you rationalize yours. There appears to be no guiding principle for terminology unless it happens to correspond to the pro-life movement’s view. What you consider “horrible” seems fairly relative, but entirely based on whether this issue is related to the pro-life agenda. I don’t mean to be snippish here because I really enjoy most of your criticism, but there appears to be such a blind-spot that rationality appears to be tossed out the window anytime the issue is related to the pro-life agenda.

    He went to prison for murder. That’s acknowledged in the story. The word “killed” was used in the story, along with “physician assisted suicide.” You’ve glommed onto a couple of passages while ignoring the larger context. I don’t have any trouble with saying he killed Youk, which as you so sarcastically pointed out, is the reason he went to prison. But I don’t find the term “helped” to be so problematic, given the context of how the killing took place. It’s not black and white, which appears to be how want the story covered. The question was asked with a specific purpose and to elicit a response; it wasn’t a Nancy Grace-style inquisition or Fox News hit piece.

    Maybe we will need to agree to disagree.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Michael,

    I’m sorry to see this is your response. We don’t need to agree to disagree — you simply need to respond to my claim about your inconsistency.

    I will presume that your inability or unwillingness to do so means that you have no argument to explain your inconsistency. Should you develop one, I would love to read it.

  • Michael

    I will presume that your inability or unwillingness to do so means that you have no argument to explain your inconsistency.

    “Physician-assisted suicide” is a term advocated by Kevorkian. If I am interviewing him in a personality story, it doesn’t make sense to avoid a term he is going to use over and over again. Just as if I was interviewing your friends at the Pro-life Action League, I’m going to use the term “partial-birth abortion” because they are going to use it over and over.

    In a neutral story where I’m interviewing people from all sides, I’d probably throw both terms in quotations. I would not, however, go as far as you have and assert that propaganda terms be used without quotes or a “so-called” in an objective, talk-to-all sides story.

    GR struggles with the idea that there are different kinds of stories. A personality profile or a feature story has a different set of rules than a straight-forward news stories. Word-choice and point-of-view can be different. The stories you write for the conservative press are different from stories you write for the general press. A question you ask on air in a TV interview is different from a question asked for an AP wire story.

  • Pingback: SmartChristian.com » Blog Archive »

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Michael,

    You have mischaracterized my position, which disappoints me.

    To be clear, I have said that I found the avoidance of the term partial-birth abortion to be interesting. I have asked questions about its use. I think the avoidance of the term is somewhat silly. I HAVE ALSO — in this very post — supported the use of the term assisted suicide. So my position is consistent. Or at the very least, based on what I have written, it is not inconsistent.

    Here is what I have had to say about the use or avoidance of the use of the term partial-birth abortion:

    The write-ups also followed the lead of those who oppose abortion in shying away from the use of the term “partial-birth abortion” — although the very law the court upheld used the term.

    I’m not arguing that the medical term isn’t “intact dilation and extraction” (so called because the child is removed from the womb via the cervix and then killed). Such bias against the language and rhetoric of abortion opponents is so expected these days that it’s almost become the norm, but we should remain diligent. The issue won’t stop being contentious, so reporters should redouble their efforts at neutrality.

    You will note that my problem was the avoidance of the term considering, in particular, that it is the term used by the U.S. Congress and it still is difficult to find in news stories.

    Later, I mentioned an article with the line: By identifying the intact procedure and giving it the provocative label “partial-birth abortion,” the movement turned the public focus of the abortion debate from the rights of women to the fate of fetuses. To that I wrote:

    Note that the procedure — in which the fetus’ brains are sucked out in order to collapse the skull — isn’t provocative. The label is.

    Again, you might note that my problem is that the stories are written with a bias that matches up with one side of the debate. The term is provocative — not the procedure.

    When I wrote that, you referred to the term “partial-birth abortion” as “made-up.”

    In response to this comment, I wrote:

    Actually one of the terms used by pro-lifers was: “Brain-suction Abortion” . . . And the term was used even in liberal publications like Slate until the abortion rights lobby put a stop to it a few years ago.

    Either way — I find it interesting the steadfast avoidance of the term. What specifically bothers opponents of the term? It is an abortion method, so I suppose that’s not the problem. Is it the “partial-birth” aspect then? What specifically about that description is problematic?

    You’ll note that my focus is on the mainstream media’s avoidance of the term.

    You then wrote:

    the use of a term invented by the pro-life movement—”partial birth abortion”—needs to be inserted into a story and the failure to do so is evidence of bias?

    TO WHICH I RESPONDED:

    I don’t understand the opposition to the term “partial-birth abortion.” None who oppose it have explained what specifically bothers them about it. I understand the term was developed by pro-lifers and is not medical jargon. But I’m just curious to have the discussion.

    The ban is against “partial-birth abortion” not intact dilation and extraction or any other jargon.

    Having said that, I don’t necessarily think we must use the term partial-birth abortion.

    But replacing it with “a method of abortion” does nothing. Neither does replacing it with a “rare but controversial method” of abortion.

    The public opposition to the procedure is based on the precise method so I think that it’s worth describing better.

    I think that we could do better than “a method.”

    Doesn’t everyone?

    Did you notice my boldfaced line? I specifically responded to your claim that the term MUST be used by saying that I didn’t think it had to be used.

    So you have GROSSLY mischaracterized my position. In the future, I would appreciate you reading my words more closely.

    At this point in the previous discussion, Terry asked you:

    Did you address MZ’s point about some created language being accepted by the media on one side whole similar phrases are forbidden on the other?

    Also, What happens if the phrase Partial-Birth Abortion is actually in the name of the legislation? Do you boycott usage of the name of the actual bill?

    I excerpt that comment since this pertains directly to the conversation today. Why is it so easy for the mainstream media to use a propaganda term created and advanced by the pro-euthanasia side but so difficult to use one created by pro-lifers? Why do you think that is?

    Anyway, your response was basically that it’s okay to use the term outside of quotes when referring to the legislation but otherwise it should only be used in quotes.

    Whether or not you have a personal approach to how to use these terms, you can not deny that there is a difference between how the mainstream media use terms that originate from interested parties. We’re not evaluating how YOU would write about the issues but how the mainstrea media do. How do you explain the difference? Why are you so silent on the use of the terms physician-assisted suicide or assisted suicide when you have been so negative about the use of the term partial-birth abortion?

  • Michael

    Why are you so silent on the use of the terms physician-assisted suicide or assisted suicide when you have been so negative about the use of the term partial-birth abortion?

    As I’ve said, the proper approach for the mainstream print media would be to put all those terms in quotes. There are different contexts and, of course, you can’t use “quotes” in a TV interview so we don’t really know how Wallace would get around it.

    I continue to be surprised by the vehemence in calling the 60 Minutes story “horrible journalism” because you don’t like the terms–and again, this is your nitpicking about terms that has caused all the commotion–yet your seeming acceptance and approval of the use of partial birth abortion. even if you don’t go as far as mandating its usage. It’s an odd double standard, although it has the internal consistency of being a bludgeon against the “mainstream media” and supportive of a pro-life bias.

    I don’t think the mainstream media is as biased as you and your fellow bloggers think it is, but that’s what makes your particular voice unique. It’s what makes coming to the blog interesting and what makes debating worthwhile And you all deserve credit for never conceding a single inch.

    I think, however, it also can be damaging. I am bothered by the viewpoints of some commenters who–having accepted your bias critique–are now convinced that even the weather and box scores have a liberal, anti-Christian bias. There’s something dangerous to us in the media when those assumptions go unchallenged, but when those who disagree with you are bluntly chastized.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I was just thinking as I read here some comments about Mike Wallace’s problems with suicidal depression that if Dr. Kevorkian had been Wallace’s doctor, Wallace would most likely be dead now. In fact, in those places where doctor assisted killing is legal, it is becoming more and more evident that you better not go to some doctors if you have depression. For, apparently, pro-euthanasia doctors prefer killing to curing in such cases. So in those places it is a crap shoot trying to pick a doctor who will work to cure you instead of urging you to the exit door. And that is why the Hippocratic Oath was designed to separate healing from killing. Of course, because of our country’s love affair with the “Culture of Death” the Hippocratic Oath has been dropped in many medical schools or given only after fraudulent censorship making it the unHippocratic Oath.

  • sharon corea

    In my view the media does play to the mainstream and tries to evoke emotion – it sells.

    Partial-birth abortion lends itself to guilt, abortion lends itself to a non-descript term that stands apart from acknowledging life. A sexual society will chose the later – it’s easier to deal with.

    Euthenasia is a term used for patients that typically are at the end or vegatative and the family struggles with a decision – the doctor doesn’t assist as far as agreement unless death is seen inevitable. Physician-assisted suicide is a term created in the last 10 years or so – in hearing Larry King’s interview with Jack K. the doctor clearly stated his position – it reasons out what he feels is right and does not think there is a God. He was careful to leave room for the Almighty if someone proves him to be.

    The Deacon’s comment rings true in many people’s lives as Wallace. Especially teens when going through stressful times and would rather end it all instead of reaching out for help that one cannot see when depressed.

    Those families interviewed on CNN were mostly against the act of assisted suicide in their loved ones lives – I saw one brother who was thankful and one young man who struggled to speak to please end it. I don’t think those depressed or ill are in their “right mind” to make such decisions – that’s why doctors take an oath. Jack K. didn’t know these people from within – he knew of a wish that comes from the depths of despair. Was it really a compassion for those hurting? Or someone acting like God who has no God – in the guise of promoting peace and comfort to the afflicted?

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Michael said:

    I think, however, it also can be damaging. I am bothered by the viewpoints of some commenters who—having accepted your bias critique—are now convinced that even the weather and box scores have a liberal, anti-Christian bias.

    Site examples please. “Some commentators” is too vague.

    Such a viewpoint would be quite stupid. I have met conservatives who say things like that and I tell them that is a straw-man argument. No one is interested in such statements, here.

    However, these vague sports-bias researchers you vaguely mention could be talking about the NYTimes coverage of the Master’s golf tournament. The Times now would agree with them on that issue.

    Michael says:

    There’s something dangerous to us in the media when those assumptions go unchallenged, but when those who disagree with you are bluntly chastized.

    MZ is not chastizing you. She is disagreeing with you and quoting material to make her points. Please do the same.

    Take your own views seriously. Answer questions and argue the points. Take your own statements seriously. Please.

  • Michael

    I was being facetious about the weather and sports examples to make a point that this constant drumbeat of “liberal media bias” quelled from nitpicking encourages people to assume EVERYTHING in their newpspaper and on television is the product of some liberal, secular cabal. I think that’s dangerous for the media.

  • Chris Bolinger

    Michael, once again you completely underestimate the intelligence and discernment of those whose viewpoints differ from yours. Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance. Yes, we idiots out here believe that there is liberal media bias — no, sorry, that EVERYTHING in the media is the product of some liberal, secular cabal — because others have told us so and given us a few “nitpicking” examples. That’s all we need. We’re easily led, don’t you know?

  • Eli

    I just have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion folks. My favorite notion was Jonathan Rauch’s idea of Hidden Law that Mollie brought up. Absolutely brilliant stuff….

    What would a culture without shame or guilt or “hierarchies of respectability” look like? How is a shameless society even imaginable, given the unbudgeable fact that humans, like dogs and chimpanzees, look to each other for guidance and approval and clues on how to behave?

    THE fact is, there are going to be norms; the question is always, What sort of norms?

  • Walter Bender

    In a June 1st MSNBC editorial, Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, called Dr. Jack Kevorkian a “dangerous killer.” Melody Youk, wife of Thomas Youk, whose Kevorkian-assisted suicide was broadcast on “60 Minutes,” said, “I don’t consider it murder…I consider it humane.” Youk’s mother and brothers agree.

    Many call Dr. Kevorkian a “fanatic.” While Final Exit Network and other right-to-die organizations don’t employ or agree with his methods, every successful human rights movement has been built on the dedication and sacrifices of brave individuals such as Jack Kevorkian. Rosa Parks didn’t help launch the Civil Rights movement by obeying unjust laws.

    Dr. Kevorkian took selfless risks that made Americans aware of needless suffering at the end of life. His zeal captured attention that made it possible for more moderate voices to achieve limited successes. More humane palliative care, widespread support for advance directives and the Oregon Physician Assisted Suicide law grew from the seeds of his advocacy.

    Lest we forget, the right to a peaceful, dignified death has far to go. Today, even in Oregon, Youk would be forced to suffer on, because his ALS, while terrifying, disabling and robbing him of all quality of life, wasn’t “terminal.”

    Caplan and iron-fisted judge Cooper call it murder. We believe Jack Kevorkian engaged in courageous acts of civil disobedience to help secure the last human right.

    Welcome back Dr. Kevorkian.

    Walter Bender
    Colorado

  • Matt

    For the record, Wallace forsook even the pretence of objectivity in a 10 June letter to the NYT, responding to the NYT’s 5 June editorial criticizing Kevorkian’s actions as counter-productive for the assisted suicide movement. Wallace wants us all to know that Kevorkian speaks Japanese and plays the flute. And though he will refrain from assisted suicides in the future, in compliance with his parole, spokesman Wallace assures us that Kevorkian will continue to advocate for changes in the laws. I’m sure we are all relieved and inspired.