St Petersburg Times Admits Bias in Terri Schiavo Case

none cited ^ | 05-07-04 | Cheryl Ford, RN

[phenn]

To: Fight4Terri Supporters
Re: St PetersBurg Times Admits Bias
From: Cheryl Ford RN

Above is an email from the Associated Editor and Columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, and his response to one of Fight4Terri Action Group Volunteers, regarding the unfair coverage of the Terri Schiavo case.

What Mr. Dyckman is, essentially, saying is that he feels no obligation to do anything to balance out the coverage of Terri's plight because he, PERSONALLY, is not in agreement.

This is a serious, blatant and outrageous encroachment on freedom of speech and no newspaper in this country has the authority to limit editorial or opinion content based on their own PERSONAL set of opinions.

This should come to you as an absolute outrage. However, it should come as NO surprise. For nearly a year, the St. Petersburg Times has advocated Terri's death and REFUSED to report on the violations of the guardianship codes and the ongoing neglect Terri is made to endure.

If I were of a minority heritage submitting a commentary and were halted by an editor with a dislike of my ethnic background, would you not be outraged?

If I were a disabled person submitting a commentary and were turned away because of an editor's personal fear of disability, would you not be outraged?

If I were a poor or homeless person submitting a commentary and had the door shut on me because of an editor's prejudice against the less fortunate, would you not be outraged?

That is EXACTLY what has happened here.

The next time you wonder to yourself why the people in Pinellas County, Florida aren't up in arms over what is being done to Terri
Schindler-Schiavo, an innocent and helpless woman trapped in the grips of a neglectful guardian and an apathetic system, refer back to what you're about to read here.

Better yet, contact Mr. Dyckman and tell him precisely why his response is so outrageous and un-American.

Martin Dyckman - Associate editor and columnist
Dyckman@sptimes.com
St. Petersburg Times
336 East College Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-224-6394

 

[phenn]

----- Original Message -----
From: Dyckman@sptimes.com
To: (name redacted)
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Terri Schiavo Coverage

Dear (name redacted):

I empathize with your situation. You have made the choices that are right for you. That is all that Mr. Schiavo wanted for himself and his wife until the governor and legislature intervened in violation of the Florida Constitution.

However, I must tell you that as a person who knows the names of distant kin murdered by the Nazis, I am insulted whenever anyone attempts to equate the issue of Ms. Schiavo being allowed to die a natural death with the deliberate genocide they practiced.  

No reply is necessary.  

Martin Dyckman
Associate editor and columnist
St. Petersburg Times
336 East College Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-224-6394

______________________________________________________________________
THIS IS THE  LETTER SENT TO MR. DYCKMAN FROM A FIGHT4TERRI ACTION GROUP VOLUNTEER REQUESTING FAIR AND EQUAL COVERAGE OF TERRI.

I am writing to you to express my disappointment with the manner in which your newspaper covers Terry Schiavo.  As a mother of a child who would be
described as being in a persistent vegetative state and is also fed by feeding tube, I am fully aware of the needs a person like Terry has. 

I think it would be a good idea for your paper to educate its readers on exactly what caring for someone diagnosed as PVS is like.  From your
reportage PVS could be misconstrued by your readers to be a coma-like state, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and particularly in
Terri's case.  Perhaps you could interview parents of a child with PVS to learn exactly what kind of quality of life such a child has.  I would be
happy to be interviewed for such a story.

In my case, my child who is 8 would be described as being in a PVS.  She was vaccine-damaged at the age of 4 months and her development was arrested. She lost her swallowing reflex and has been unable to eat adequate amounts of solids and so is dependant upon a feeding tube for her nourishment.  The past 8 years have been the most intense I have ever experienced; filled with joy, laughter and sadness.  The idea that a judge could decide whether my child live or die is just abhorrent to me.  My daughters contribution to her family, friends and neighbours, in terms of the love and happiness she brings could never be measured and is priceless.

Like Terri, my child does not communicate verbally, but there is an unspoken communication between us, it is usually easy to determine what she needs or why she might be unhappy.  Likewise, it is very easy to know exactly what makes her happy.  With therapy my daughters condition has improved and I
believe that anything is possible with the right care and attention. Reading Terri's parents testimony to her present condition, one gets the impression that Terri is a very upbeat woman who is cognitive and responsive.  I find it incredibly cruel that her life could be used in the way that it is being done so in the state of Florida to encroach on the sanctity of life.  It is ironic that we try to preserve the rights of unborn embryos and yet in the case of Terri, we encourage the practise of euthanasia.  Is this because her life has no utilitarian function deemed worthy of preserving?  And who is entitled to make that decision? 

It reminds me of the nazi euthanasia programme that saw the disabled killed because they were not considered useful to society, this was accepted by
German society at the time.  Unfortunately, this notion of utility did not stop with the disabled but over time grew to include able-bodied humans that
society felt were of no value; the chronically sick and elderly, those considered pararsites, political dissidents and finally culminating in the holocaust in which millions of jews were incinerated.  The holocaust could never have occured without first convincing society that it was compassionate to kill the disabled because they had no "quality of life". 

Admittedly, caring for Terri is going to be expensive, Terri's parents are fully aware of this but they love their child dearly and are battling to protect her from harm because she is very precious to them.  If we are prepared to commit euthanasia despite the wishes of her parents, where precisely do we draw the line and say, this life is worth preserving and that one is not? 

It is really important that your paper address these issues.  Your readers need to understand that Terri does feel.  Removing Terri's feeding tube and
allowing her to starve to death, when she is in such a vulnerable state, is the cruelest idea imaginable.  It has been suggested that she is incapable
of feeling and yet she is clearly delighted by the presence of her parents when they visit her in hospital.   Michael Schiavo says that removing her
feeding tube would allow Terri to die with dignity.  However, starving to death would cause her enormous pain, physically and emotionally.  

It is said that a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members.  Allowing Terri to die in this way would not reflect well on the state of Florida.  I have always found that a good rule of thumb is "what if the shoe were on the other foot".  It has been claimed by Michael Schiavo that Terri would wish for the "plug to be pulled".  Is it not strange that she would never have expressed this opinion to her parents and best friends?


I really do not think that removing Terri's feeding tube is a line that we who are presently able-bodied, should be ready to cross.

Please endeavour to show the human side of the plight of Terri and her parents.  It is extremely sad and troubling that some 60 years after the
holocaust that we are ready to embark once more with a euthanasia programme on the very same platform that was used by the nazis - i.e. compassion - and when we know so well the experiment ended in the gas chambers.

I look forward to seeing more positive and humane coverage of Terri in the future.

Yours sincerely

(name redacted)
 

[phenn]

~ping~

Just another disgrace from Florida.

[Lorianne]

This is a serious, blatant and outrageous encroachment on freedom of speech and no newspaper in this country has the authority to limit editorial or opinion content based on their own PERSONAL set of opinions. No, it is NOT an encroachment on the 1st Ammendment. Editorials are the opinions of the media source's owner or manager. That is what an editorial is! 1A restricts the GOVERNMENT from censorship. Not newspapers or private individuals (who may happen to own a newspaper. So many people do not understand the 1st Amendment.

[phenn]

I respectfully disagree, Lorianne. Not when they INVITE commentary and submissions from readers, then cherry-pick those that reflect their own beliefs. There is a drop off there. It is either a public forum or it is not.

[Restorer]

I'm with Lorianne. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the people who control the media to say whatever they want. If you want to join this elite group, you'll have to buy a media outlet.

Luckily, recent technological advances have made this a whole lot easier.

Start a blog. If it's good enough, you'll quickly get a lot of readers and links. If what you have to say isn't interesting enough, nobody will pay any attention.

[Lorianne]

I'm not saying it's responsible journalism.

My point is that bias in newspapers (and especially in an editorial or on an editorial page) is NOT an encroachment of free speech per our 1st Ammendment.

[phenn]

Your advice is sound and, believe me, I understand how powerful the internet can be in the court of public opinion. However, I don't think that's where the author was going and it wasn't where I was going. Let me try to rephrase.

The author is not stating this is a 1st Amendment violation. She is stating that the act is an encroachment on her own freedom of speech - by the paper, not the government. And, I think it is within that spirit that her comments are meant to be read.

Again, I will cite that this particular publication invites submissions from their readers for republication. Picking out only those that reflect their opinions is almost a form of censorship and it's damn dishonest reporting at very least. The Times invites readers to voice their opinions, yes? So, why do they censor those they take acception to?

The reason this is offensive and wrong goes beyond (or around or under) the Amendment. The reference to the author's freedom is probably meant to be separate. This can easily be assessed as an intentional misrepresentation of public opinion and done for a specific reason or outcome dear to the editor/publisher.

That's censorship if, indeed, the paper/publication invites independent submission. Coming from a journalistic institution, that makes it wrong, biased, misleading, dishonest and - as the author pointed out - an offense to her personal freedom of speech.

[thoughtomator]

The fact of the matter is that no journalist is ever, or ever can be, an objective observer, in an age where media can affect an event as it is happening.

[phenn]

Then, I would submit to you that the very profession is the equivalent of a ink and paper singles bar.

[drjimmy]

The author is not stating this is a 1st Amendment violation. She is stating that the act is an encroachment on her own freedom of speech - by the paper, not the government.
This is what the author says: "This is a serious, blatant and outrageous encroachment on freedom of speech and no newspaper in this country has the authority to limit editorial or opinion content based on their own PERSONAL set of opinions." For you to say the author isn't claiming a 1st Amendment violation by the newspaper is ridiculous, since there exists no other "freedom of speech" outside the 1st Amendment. A newspaper gets its authority from its owner, and no one else.

Again, I will cite that this particular publication invites submissions from their readers for republication. Picking out only those that reflect their opinions is almost a form of censorship and it's damn dishonest reporting at very least. The Times invites readers to voice their opinions, yes? So, why do they censor those they take acception to?
The letter writer is specifically asking the newspaper to put something into its "reportage," and offers herself up to be interviewed. That is completely different from its opinion section, which invites comments from readers. If she writes a letter to the editor that meets the newspapers posted guidelines but still doesn't get printed, she might have a case. If the paper doesn't print any letters from people with the same opinion she has, she would have a huge case. She so far hasn't provided any evidence to that effect.

[Catspaw]

Again, I will cite that this particular publication invites submissions from their readers for republication. Picking out only those that reflect their opinions is almost a form of censorship and it's damn dishonest reporting at very least.

When you own your own newspaper, you'll print all the submissions you receive, won't you?

[russesjunjee]

The prejudice of the ST. Pete Times goes way beyond their editorial section...Just take a browse through their archives and you'll see what I mean.

Any media that is not one hundred percent objective is.....

PROPAGANDA!

Propaganda: False or biased information that is fed to the public by individuals or groups of people who wish to subvert the public consciousness and bend it to their will.

Propaganda hog swallop like the St. Pete Times spews out is the reason half the people in this country have been lulled into a state of zombie-like false security.

The truth is out there, but you aint gonna find it in the St. Pete times.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Beautiful letter. I must rethink my response to this person.

[pickyourpoison]

ping

[Lorianne]

I never claimed otherwise.

By the way, regarding your hypothetical "media that is one hundred percent objective" .... I doubt there is such a beast. I'd bet on finding the Loch Ness Monster before I would bet on finding one of those.

[phenn]

I have an archive of about 80 letters submitted that do meet their guidelines. Not a one has been published. Don't take my word for it. Please - search the Times' archives.

www.sptimes.com/schiavo

[phenn]

I would probably do just that - or find another occupation.

[floriduh voter]

From GWB AND GOP MAN to Dykman.

Dyckman,

Your nazi-esque mentality is appalling. You have NO REGARD for lives of the disabled, do you Dyckman?

You are a sad and despicable individual, along with Michael Schiavo, George Felos and Debra Bushnell.

Read on if you care to understand the TRUTH for once in your life...

Nazis had hospitals kill 200,000 disabled, mentality ill.

link for The Globe and Mail but I don't have it...

[phenn]

RE: debating the use of the phrase 'freedom of speech'.

I'm happy to debate this or put things straight with the post, but I would hate to think we are all missing the point here.

For those who have the time, interest and inclination, take the Pepsi challenge. Write to the times on letters@sptimes.com or find their feedback page on http://www.sptimes.com.

Send them whatever you feel is a good support for Terri's human rights to be reinstated, her protection, her constitutional rights to be enforced. Whatever you think is appropriate. Post it here when you're done.

Then, let me know when you make it to print.

Fair enough to everyone? Let me know what becomes of your opinion in their 'public forum'. Just try it. Let's give them a chance to redeem their designation as a journalistic institute.

As for the other debating, I most certainly appreciate the feedback and correction. I will take everything said here very close to heart.

I hope you will do the same with what I've just written.