I don't know about you, but when I read the news, I tend to skim the headlines first and then stop and read anything that has caught my interest. I suspect most of you are probably about the same. Yet I have found that sometimes, the headlines don't accurately reflect what's really going on. Take this morning, for example.
I've heard of this story, but haven't really followed it much. From skimming the headlines, it sounds like the mother held on just long enough to have the baby and then gave up. Sad in a way, but maybe better off in the long run. Then I get to the Washington Post.
Now I don't know about you, but to me, that conveys a COMPLETLY different story. I'm not trying to start another debate over the rights and/or wrongs of removing someone from life support. That is an arduous debate that certainly will not be solved on a blog. But what I do want to point out is what I want from my news, which is the truth. Plain, simple, unvarnished truth. After all, if euthanasia is such a good thing, why aren't you coming out and saying that that's what this was? I don't think I'm asking too much of a news outlet to simply show enough respect for me, its readers and even the woman who died to just tell the truth of the matter instead of leading us to think something completely different.
1
Howie:
As I stated, there's a difference between this and the Florida case. This wooman was on a support sysytem for breathing, etc., and was not merely being fed food and water. The Church says it is imperative to supply the latter to a person, not the former.
But I get your point. The subtle omission or placement of one tiny word can bring on a whole new meaning.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 07:37 AM (x+5JB)
Posted by: V the K at August 04, 2005 08:08 AM (XiVKO)
3
V the K: So many possibilities on this one!
Wonder which "Bill" they mean???
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 08:13 AM (x+5JB)
4
Heh. Yeah, we've been discussing that one
here. According to one of my readers, the national sex offender database that Shrillary refers to doesn't contain any entries for New York.
Posted by: Drew at August 04, 2005 08:15 AM (Ml8z/)
5
Uh YBP this is drews post.
Posted by: Howie at August 04, 2005 08:37 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 09:01 AM (x+5JB)
7
Maybe you should try reading the story? The woman had cerebral cancer that effectively ended her life a couple months ago. Because she was carrying a child the husband wanted to give the unborn baby a chance (rather than let the fetus die with her) they kept her body on life support to bring the baby to a deliverable point.
Am I wrong or is commenting without knowledge and appropriate consideration just the kind of knee-jerk behavior that is typical of liberals? Do your homework please! Every good conservative should...
Posted by: Rob at August 04, 2005 11:18 AM (TNu1w)
8
Maybe you should try reading the story.
I'm not trying to start another debate over the rights and/or wrongs of removing someone from life support.
Hmmm.
Posted by: Drew at August 04, 2005 11:20 AM (Ml8z/)
9
I understood Drew's point was to point out the discrepancies between the different headlines--nothing more.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 11:54 AM (x+5JB)
10
As others have commented this is NOT a re-tread of the Terry Schiavo case, and is most certainly not a case of Euthanasia. It is in fact a story of heroic sacrifice on the part of both Susan Torres, her husband Jason, and a great many charitable souls surounding them. Susan's life support needs were the textbook definition of "Extraordinary measures", the respirator was just the beginning. It was costing Jason ten thousand dollars A DAY to keep her alive for three months to save their baby, ABOVE AND BEYOND what insurance was covering. Friends and strangers pitched in with love, comfort and generous financial support to save Jason and Susan's baby. It is a tragic, but beautiful answer to the Schiavo case where this time love of life has defied the culture of death. Requiesciat in pace Susan Torres.
Posted by: JAU at August 04, 2005 12:02 PM (O/K0I)
11
I feel the papers did nothing wrong. It is perfectly okay to
try and lure people into a story with the headline. As long as
they told the truth about what happen in the story, then no foul.
It is much like the spam and other bogus contest, "Enter and you
can $50 gizallion dollars." And then when you read the fine print
you know you have to be able to do 10 backflips, while holding
a 15 pound bowling ball, and sing the newest country and rap
hits in both English and Jamican.
Posted by: Butch at August 04, 2005 01:51 PM (Gqhi9)
12
I think the term "brain dead woman" is tasteless. But then again, it is the media, so what do you expect?
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 04, 2005 02:33 PM (SZ940)
13
You want the truth from a "news" outlet? What planet do you live on?
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 04, 2005 04:13 PM (Z6yVb)
14
Our Priest once said that if the average American watched a partial birth abortion on TV between sit coms, the county would finally come around to the truth of what has been happening.
Imagine a TV 60-second spot where a child is borne alive and itÂ’s skull is cracked open and the brain is sucked out while the child screams.
Much better for butch and the libs to call this....”Choice”
The MSM will call killing freedom, and call the attempt to save life...hate. I have zero expectations from them.
Posted by: Brad at August 04, 2005 11:41 PM (pO1tP)
15
Hey Drew,
This rejoinder will be my last and is in my mind one too many, but remember, you called me out. The headlines "brain dead woman gives birth" were completely true. So was the headline "brain dead woman taken off life support". No discrepancy is apparent here. Both statements are true. The news reported the facts in the headlines. No insult to your intelligence was intended.
Sometimes the devil is not only in the details we overlook, but also the details we assume to be in place because of a pre-conceived notion of what happened. Its an intelligent man who can admit he has done that and move on.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rob at August 05, 2005 08:12 AM (TNu1w)
16
Your insinuation that I did not read the articles was untrue, and your reaction showed that not only were you falsly accusing and calling me a "knee-jerk reactionist", but you were also engaged in the "non-reading, knee-jerk reaction" of which you accused me.
To think that newspapers have no bias whatsoever, you must live in a complete and total dreamland. They always have and always will. Yes, both of the headlines represented the truth of what happened. Only one represented the ENTIRE truth of what happened. The other three made it seem as though she had simply passed away while giving birth. They don't want to mention the fact that her husband took her off life support. I don't know their reasons or motivations behind this. I do know that it is misleading to someone like me who hadn't been following the story closely.
AND THAT IS THE POINT OF THE ENTIRE POST. I felt that the first three headlines were misleading through omission and did not do justice to the story. I had no preconcieved notion of what happened because I DID NOT KNOW. And, in skimming the headlines of the paper, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN.
Now, the next time you want to come around insulting my intellingence and insunating that I am a "knee-jerk liberal", then maybe you should have some vague idea of what the hell I am talking about first. I'll debate you on anything, but there's really nothing here that's debatable. And always remember "It's beeter to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and prove everyone right."
Posted by: Drew at August 05, 2005 08:22 AM (Ml8z/)
17
You go Drew. Drew is about as liberal as I am sane. don't let em get to you say whatever the hell you like.
Posted by: Howie at August 05, 2005 08:29 AM (D3+20)
18
Okay, now I'm laughing at you. Because if you were careful to read my post, I did clearly make reference to you as a "good conservative". I did NOT call you a knee-jerk liberal; rather I was making a point that because we often despise liberals for the fact that they are characterized by being "trigger happy" with their mouths we should be very careful not engage in that behavior. Sorry if this subtlety caught you unawares. I will be more blunt in the future. Without further ado:
Why did you assume the brain dead mother was not on life support? Generally people who are brain dead, with the exception of extremely rare cases (not mentioning any names or cases!!!) ARE on life support because the brain keeps the heart pumping and the lungs inflating. I would guess the more intelligent half of the population do get this concept. Which half are you? In other words do you get it or not?
Second, why did you assume that if because she could give birth, she was "hanging on" (as you put it) to do that? Brain dead implies no awareness, no willpower, no participation, no anything. The fact that a brain dead woman gave birth implies outside direction and oversight, ie doctors and family making decisions.
Lastly, why did you assume that I was trying to bring up a debate over the rights/wrongs of life support? I was just trying to point out that the headlines were pretty responsible (as headlines go) to the story. IF you think that reading the headlines will be enough to tell you the salient details, well bro, I guess newspapers waste a lot of words if you are correct in that thinking. Kind of like I am doing right now. But this is fun, because you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet and I predict that now you are going to scan this email for more ways to battle me and in the end you are doing just what I reprimanded you for in the first place. You are reading the details. Alas, now we have to work on that open mind...!
Hey, have a great day. I mean that, really. You've more than made mine.
Posted by: Rob at August 05, 2005 08:51 AM (TNu1w)
19
Well, I'm so glad that I could entertain you. After all, that is my goal in life.
Q: Why did you assume the brain dead mother was not on life support?
A: I didn't. I assumed, from the first headlines that I read, that she simply died immediately after childbirth.
Q: Second, why did you assume that if because she could give birth, she was "hanging on" (as you put it) to do that?
A: Because originally, all I had of this story was the "headline news" version of it. Very little information. I didn't find out that she was brain dead until after she had died. Everything before that has simply referred to her as "comatose," which is certainly not the same thing as brain death.
Q: Lastly, why did you assume that I was trying to bring up a debate over the rights/wrongs of life support?
A:
"Maybe you should try reading the story? The woman had cerebral cancer that effectively ended her life a couple months ago. Because she was carrying a child the husband wanted to give the unborn baby a chance (rather than let the fetus die with her) they kept her body on life support to bring the baby to a deliverable point." Sounds to me like you were trying to justify why she was taken off life support, which was not the point I was trying to make.
"IF you think that reading the headlines will be enough to tell you the salient details, well bro, I guess newspapers waste a lot of words if you are correct in that thinking."
Why does CNN have a station called "Headline News?" Little hint, because we don't always have time to read the whole story. I've had an extraordinarily busy coulple of weeks and wasn't up on this story. That's pretty much the whole point to the post. I wasn't up on the story and got a completly misleading idea about the conclusion of the story from the headlines.
"Am I wrong or is commenting without knowledge and appropriate consideration just the kind of knee-jerk behavior that is typical of liberals? Do your homework please! Every good conservative should..."
If I took the above statement in a way that it was not intended, then I apologize. It sounded more to me like you were insinuating that I am not a "good conservative."
Let me make my point another way. Did you ever see the movie "Executive Decision" with Kurt Russell and Steven Segall? When it came out, it was hyped as a Steven Segall action thriller. Most of the previews had Segall in them. Then, we get to the movies and BAM! Five minutes into the movie, Segall was killed and the entire rest of the movie was about something else entirely!
That's what I feel like when I read the headlines above. I've been handed one thing, then when I actually get in and find out what the story is about, it turns out to be something totally different. Or in this case, not totally different, but certainly different enough to be significant.
Posted by: Drew at August 05, 2005 09:12 AM (Ml8z/)
20
Okay Drew, I hear your pain on "incomplete stories" and I agree. To that I would only say that a much wiser man than I once said "Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see."
And if I can make one final recommendation, be careful about debating anyone anywhere. General Custer thought he could do that too.
Peace. Out.
Posted by: Rob at August 05, 2005 09:18 AM (TNu1w)
21
Hey, I said debate, I didn't say win!
Posted by: Drew at August 05, 2005 09:26 AM (Ml8z/)
22
Drew: I think you won this one. The headlines were all (selectively) truthful but they did not do justice to the actual circumstances.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 05, 2005 06:56 PM (3+9IT)
23
Gees Brad: Is that what really happens? Makes me sick. Sick enough to kick the so called doctors ass. My wonderful grandson was born two months early. Crack the babies skull open and suck the brain out. Don't ever let me catch one of these murder for money bastards sitting across a bar stool from me. I'll crack his brains open with a bottle of scotch and proudly do the time.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 07, 2005 10:14 PM (CBNGy)
24
Yep, greyrooster, that's really what happens. And the alternatives aren't much better. One type of abortion involves flooding the womb with saline solution, wich effectively burns the baby to death which is then ejected. Another involves pulling pieces off the baby while it's still in the womb and then reassembling the pieces on a table to ensure that they "got" everything.
Posted by: Drew at August 08, 2005 06:42 AM (Ml8z/)
25
That procedure is just murder in my book.
I’ve said this before,..I just cannot imagine what kind of sub human could pull a 9-5 shift day after day, month after month in a “clinic” like that.
I wouldn’t blow up the bastards like that nut case Rudolph. However, after finishing off a bottle of single malt scotch, if DR. shithead was sitting next to me at the bar, I might just partial birth that son of a bitch with the empty. Especially if that POS Butch was next to him talking that “ain’t nothin but tissue” shit.
Posted by: Brad at August 08, 2005 08:52 AM (6mUkl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
