By Carrie K. Hutchens
I was reading, "Brain-Injured Man Speaks After 6 Years" by Malcolm Ritter, AP Science Writer, (New York - Aug 1, 2007 -AP) and I just knew somewhere in the article, it was going to suggest that this case was unlike Terri Schiavo's. Had to read almost to the end, but as faithful as the sun coming up every morning and going down every evening -- there it was. "He noted that a similar treatment did not help Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman in a vegetative state whose care triggered national controversy before her death in 2005. That's the typical outcome for electrical brain stimulation in vegetative states, he said." (Full Article)
10 comments:
Is the Dakota Voice a subsidiary of the North Country Gazette? Is it a spin off from the Empire Journal?
It seems to have the same journalistic standards and integrity as far as verifying its facts before publication. It also seems to rely on the same anonymous sources.
There are amazing parallels in the weasel wording used that allows its author to pass off opinions and unverified and unsourced information as "fact".
Perhaps the Dakota Voice isn't jounalism at all, perhaps it is simply uninformed or misinformed opinion pieces and editorials. Or perhaps it is a deliberate effort to further propagate false information (lies).
Very little fact checking would be required before it was obvious that Carrie Hutchens has no real grasp of the FACTS of the Schiavo case.
Her column is an opinion column, but I'm not aware of any erroneous information in it. Can you point out any errors?
Errors? Misrepresentatations? or outright lies?
Perhaps you want to start with:
_____________________________
The St. Petersburg Times is quoting Michael Schiavo as saying "the brain stimulator implant was a success"?
They are quoting Michael as saying that she is slowly emerging from the coma?
How interesting!
_________________________________
As a journalist, Mr Ellis, can you explain the common practice of "quoting" and the difference between QUOTING, paraphrasing and editorializing?
It is obvious (to the educated at least) that the St Petersberg article referenced does not contain any quotes.
It appears to be a unimportant piece written by a sloppy, sleepy or otherwise disinterested local events/local interest/local color reporter that was buried 40 pages in and "under the fold" as they say in the industry.
It is obvious the reporter paraphrased.
I would guess that even in 1991- before the major decline in print media- they pretty strictly limited the space for a local events/local interest/local color piece.
In 1991 there was no "Schiavo case".
In 1991 there was no media circus.
In 1991 pro-life industries and interests hadn't embraced the Schindler family.
In 1991 Michael Schiavo hadn't given up hope that his wife could be helped, even if it had to be by EXPERIMENTAL medical procedures.
In any event the medical record is very clear on the results (or lack thereof) of the experimental treatment.
Back to the point: you can start by defending Carrie Hutchens for not knowing what a quote is or how it appears in respected newspapers.
Hutchen’s quote marks were quoting the St. Petersburg Times story, not Michael Schiavo himself. That the St. Petersburg Times reporter may have paraphrased doesn’t make the statement inaccurate.
I think, Anonymous, that you’re stuck on some technical points, the accuracy and relevancy of which are dubious, in an effort to avoid the greater point of Hutchens’ commentary. Why not go back and re-read it with something closer to an open mind?
Anonymous, might I ask who you are referring to as my "anonymous source"? Would that be Malcolm Ritter the Associate Press Science Writer, or the St. Petersburg Times? I'm sure they would be quite interested in knowing this as well, since it appears you attacked the integrity of both.
I guess there is a major difference between you and I.
Whatever I say, right or wrong, my name is attached to it. You, on the other hand, sign in as "Anonymous" and suggest you are all-knowing of the case(s), and give no reference for people to judge your comments by? At least I have an archive that is representative of my position. Where is yours?
Mr Ellis:
Did Hutchens write this:
______________________________
The St. Petersburg Times is quoting Michael Schiavo as saying "the brain stimulator implant was a success"?
They are quoting Michael as saying that she is slowly emerging from the coma?
How interesting!
_______________________________
If that is what Hutchens wrote then Hutchens is LYING and you are supporting the lie.
The St Petersberg Times article did NOT quote Michael Schiavo- there were NO quotes in the article.
You, Mr Ellis wrote this:
"That the St. Petersburg Times reporter may have paraphrased doesn’t make the statement inaccurate."
The issue is whether or not it is accurate to say that the St Peterberg Times quoted Michael Schiavo.
It is obviosuly NOT accurate to say that the St Petersberg Times QUOTED Michael Schiavo- they did not.
It is an entirely unrelated issue as to whether the reporter accurately paraphrased Mr Schiavo or not.
Hutchens wrote that Michael Schiavo was being quoted. He was NOT quoted and we have no idea what he actually said and whether the reporter interpreted and paraphrased what was said accurately.
We do know from the medical records that it is a FACT that the experimental procedure was NOT beneficial to Mrs Schiavo.
We also know that medical records and the expert opinion of doctors is somewhat more reliable as a source of information than the lay person opinion of a spouse.
Hutchens piece actually makes a statement that Hutchens likely never intended to make: there was a time that Michael Schiavo was just as optimistic and hopeful as the Schindlers and just as blind to facts. That there was a time when he had on rose colored glasses.
As to Hutchens remarks about my anonymity- What difference does it make whether you know the name of the person calling you a liar?
You either are a liar or you are not a liar. Knowing who I am will not change that FACT about you in the least.
Oh yes, and the irony of Hutchens citing and using Michael Schiavo as a reliable and authoriatative source when it suits the purpose or argument is just plain amusing.
Polar opposites accross various articles- in one piece he is the adulterous, unreliable, scheming,perjuring,abusive, money hungry such and such and in another his words (assuming they are HIS words...) are to be taken as the authoriatative source placed well above the medical records.
The real irony is that Hutchens takes great issue with the main stream media and how the MSM was never accurate because the reported facts NEVER supported Hutchens strongly held opinions.
Perhaps the reality is that there were no facts that could support Hutchens opinions. Perhaps the reality is that FACTS are FACTS regardless of the reporting and perhaps the reporting of the facts was not flawed.
Of course I say this in a place that differentiates itself as hosting "commentary".
The implication being that commentary doesn't have to be fair and accurate or measured to any particular ethical standard or rise to any particular level of truthfulness.
Anonymous: For someone who is pretty worked up about maintaining their anonymity, you also get pretty worked up about whether there are quote marks around the statement attributed to Michael Schiavo by the St. Petersburg Times. It seems you consider exactitude to be optional when it comes to establishing your identity and motives, yet you expect only the most strict use of language and grammar in an op/ed column.
By the strict definition of a quote as "a verbatim recitation of a person's statement," then no, the St. Petersburg Times didn't quote Michael Schiavo. However, by a commonly accepted definition meaning "he said this", with no changes to the meaning and intent of the statement, then it could be considered a quote.
Are you disputing that Michael Schiavo made a statement that amounted to "the brain stimulator implant was a success"? If so, in what substantive way was any statement made by Michael Schiavo different? If your contention is that Michael Schiavo didn't make a statement to this effect at all, how do you know this. Do you have access to a full transcript? Were you present?
Or are you still desperately clinging to technical objections to avoid the conclusion that we allowed a state-sanctioned murder of a disabled woman in Florida?
I'm not "worked up" in the least about my maintaining my anonymity. My identity is irrelevant to the discussion. My motivations are irrelevant to the discussion. What schools I attended, what degrees I hold, where I live, whether I vote republican or democrat- all irrelevant to the discussion.
Hutchens claims the media inaccurately or inappropriately reported on the Schiavo case and that the media demonstrated extreme bias in its reporting of the Schiavo case.
Thats like the pot calling the kettle black.
You obviously support Hutchens and Hutchens opinions and commentary to the point that you are willing to sacrifice your own credibility and integrity in your efforts to rationalize and justify the hypocrisy Hutchens demonstrates.
I will quote you, Mr Ellis:
________________________________
"By the strict definition of a quote as "a verbatim recitation of a person's statement," then no, the St. Petersburg Times didn't quote Michael Schiavo." - Ellis
________________________________
This would be your admission that Hutchens is wrong and the St Petersburg Times article does not quote Michael Schiavo.
The referenced article contains no quotes- if the paper and the reporter had the intent to quote Michael Schiavo then it would have published a quote.
If you, Mr Ellis, valued your credibility and integrity you would have left it at that. If you valued accuracy and unbiased reporting, editorial and commentary then you would have left it at that.
I use the phrase "weasel wording". Some people call it waffling. Mental health professionals refer to it as rationalizing. No matter the label - here it is in your own words, Mr Ellis:
_______________________________
"However, by a commonly accepted definition meaning "he said this", with no changes to the meaning and intent of the statement, then it could be considered a quote." -Ellis
_______________________________
Rocks are hard. Water is wet. Grass is green. The sky is blue.
The St Petersburg Times did NOT quote Michael Schiavo.
You either stick to the truth or you don't. You either have integrity or you don't. You either are honest or you are not. You value accuracy or you don't.
And, as rocks are hard. Water is wet. Grass is green. The sky is blue...
Did the St. Petersburg Times publish an article that says, "The brain stimulator implant was a success, said her husband, Mike. Mrs. Schiavo is slowly emerging from the coma at the Mediplex Medical Center, a neurological care center in Bradenton, he said. She will undergo at least a year of speech, occupational and physical therapy."
Yes!
Post a Comment