HALL OF SHAME INDUCTEES The Springfield (IL) Journal-Register / United Press International Tara Burghart Maureen Dowd Susan Wloszczyna Vickie Chachere   HOME ABOUT US ARCHIVES ARTICLES CONTACT US COURT CASES FACT SHEETS HUMOR JOURNALISTS' HALL OF SHAME LINKS OF INTEREST NOT DEAD YET GEAR PRESS RELEASES SPEAKERS' BUREAU SUPPORTERS                   NOT DEAD YET 7521 Madison St Forest Park, IL 60130 708-209-1500 Fax: 708-209-1735 TTY: 708-209-1826

JOURNALISTS' Over the years, we've noticed that a great many journalists seem to have bent over backwards to omit any mention of disability groups and our viewpoints from coverage of assisted suicide, euthanasia, or so-called "mercy killings." Some even get basic facts totally wrong. For the most part, they've gotten a free ride, because there really isn't much accountability in the media these days, unless they step on the toes of someone really big. The Not Dead Yet Journalists' Hall of Shame is our way of correcting that. The Springfield (IL) Journal-Register and United Press International There have been plenty of problems with the press coverage of the murder of 3-year-old Katherine McCarron. Much of it suggested the murder was triggered by the "understandable" stress of raising an autistic child. (Don't take our word for it - read what her grandfather had to say about the coverage in "This was not about autism" at http://www.pjstar.com/stories/052406/PHI_B9TC9LDB.033.shtml) The coverage has been brought to a new low, however, by The Springfield (IL) Journal-Register. In their May 24 article titled "Doctor held for death of daughter" this was their lead sentence: MORTON - A physician accused of the mercy killing of her autistic 3-year-old daughter is on suicide watch in the Tazewell County Jail. Please note that this was the first time that anyone in the press had referred to this as a "mercy killing." No family member, no friend, no autism advocate - NO ONE - ever referred to this alleged murder as a "mercy killing." When NDY called the Journal-Register, the news editor admitted the staff themselves came up with the term. They defended its use, because the accused (and self-admitted) killer told police she wanted to end the "suffering" of herself and her daughter. They wouldn't budge on the term, even when it was pointed out that other killers have made similar wild claims. Obviously, they figured it was OK to use since the victim was disabled. (Admission: the NDY caller got angry enough to use the "f" word when pointing out they didn't even use "f___ing scare quotes" around the term. It was an unfortunate lapse that gave the editor the excuse he was looking for to hang up on me.) The damage doesn't stop there. UPI evidently hasn't bothered to read any of the Peoria coverage - where the killing actually occurred. They issued their own wire version which appeared, among other places, in the Washington Times: "Doctor accused in autistic girl's death." Lead sentence: A central Illinois doctor faces first-degree murder charges in the alleged mercy killing of her 3-year-old autistic daughter. After a futile attempt to get through to someone at the UPI to complain, NDY talked to a news editor at the Washington Times. They took the complaint seriously (we thought) and also said they'd try to contact UPI. The result? The addition of a qualifying phrase at the end of the sentence, so that it now reads: A central Illinois doctor faces first-degree murder charges in the alleged mercy killing of her 3-year-old autistic daughter, a report said Wednesday. Let's get it straight: the only people who are "alleging" that the murder of Katherine McCarron was a "mercy killing" are the so-called journalists at the Springfield Journal-Register and UPI. The decision to term this alleged murder a "mercy killing" defines a motive of compassion for the accused perpetrator and portrays the victim as "suffering" - and better off dead. This is not "reporting" the story - it's "framing" and "constructing" the story. We wish we had specific names to attach this award to, but no one at either place seems proud enough to announce ownership of these bigoted, hateful and unprofessional examples of "journalism." Posted by Stephen Drake, NDY research analyst Tara Burghart, Associated Press/Chicago Associated Press Misinforming People About Euthanasia and "Terminality" On August 8, 2005, a story was broadcast to news outlets all over the world from the Chicago AP office. The article concerns a new, predictable and self-serving study published by researchers in the Netherlands. But that isn't really the main concern here. AP Correspondent Tara Burghart provided the following as background information to readers: "A study released Monday sheds new light on euthanasia in the Netherlands, the first country to legalize it for terminally ill people" And this... "The study comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of euthanasia -- especially in the Netherlands, where officials acknowledged last year that they had carried out mercy killings of terminally ill newborns." What's wrong with this picture? Plenty. For starters, "eligibility" for euthanasia in the Netherlands has never been limited to "terminally ill people." Don't take our word for it. Go check out the website of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs ­ the page devoted to info on their euthanasia policies is available in English at: http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ257609&x=135&y=26 Then there's that gross misinformation about the "mercy killings of terminally ill newborns." Here, Burghart no doubt picked up the misinformation published by her AP colleague Linda Johnson (you can still find a copy of Johnson's article at: http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/0305/10euthanasia.html) In fact, the report about the euthanizing of newborns, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, emphasized that the 22 infants whose killings were reported all has spina bifida. Spina bifida is NOT a terminal illness, it's a condition associated with several disabilities. You don't even have to take our word about the spina bifida -- that info is buried in the middle of Johnson's article. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are important and contentious social issues. The Associated Press owes it to the public to get its facts straight. They've failed us all miserably in their Netherlands coverage. Tara Burghart's story can be found, among other places, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080800841.html Susan Wloszczyna, USA Today Our first offering is this article by Susan Wloszczyna, published on January 23 in USA Today. 'Million Dollar' Mystery discusses the fact that Million Dollar Baby has a surprise ending. The author praises the movie and suggests people hurry and see it before the "twist" at the end of the movie is revealed to them. She then names and labels conservative commentators who have revealed the end of the movie, including the appearance of one person on "The 700 Club." But she stops naming names when she gets here: "One organization, whose name would be a form of a spoiler itself, issued a statement last week decrying what they see as a "vendetta" executed by Eastwood and his film." The organization quoted here is the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Why is it that she can list and name conservative commentators with abandon but can't reveal that at least two disability organizations blasted the movie, "spoiling" it in the process? Obviously, we can't answer that question, but it's obvious that anyone reading this article will come away with the impression that the only people making noise about this movie are Christian conservatives. This isn't reporting the news, it's shaping the news. Welcome, Ms. Wloszczyna, to our "Hall of Shame." Read 'Million Dollar' Mystery (USA Today, Jan. 23, 2005) Vickie Chachere The Associated Press, Tallahassee, FL The Associated Press presents a special problem. As newspapers across the country have downsized staffs, they have become more reliant on wire services such as the Associated Press. When the AP gets something wrong, the misinformation can spread like a nasty rash across the news media as the story gets reproduced or used as a source. There is no ombudsman at the AP and we know from painful experience they are loathe to admit errors. Here is the latest example of misinformation disseminated by an AP reporter on a national story: Former Schiavo guardian calls for definitive tests This article, which was picked up by the Tallahassee Democrat and other papers, contained the following: Wolfson said it is not too late to revisit the original question in the long-running legal saga - is the 41-year-old woman disabled, or brain dead? "There is so much at stake here, not just for Terri, but for the issue," said Wolfson, who is both a physician and a lawyer and serves as director of the Health Policy Information Center at USF. No one -- not even the physicians who have testified for Michael Schiavo -- has ever claimed that Terri Schiavo is "brain dead." The dispute is whether or not she is truly in a vegetative state. Medically and legally, these are two very different diagnoses. We doubt that is what Dr. Wolfson said - at least, we hope not. In any case, Ms. Chachere has covered this case for years and should know better. But don't hold your breath waiting for the AP to issue a correction or publicly acknowledge they erred. It's also disappointing there has been no discernable objection from Dr. Wolfson. Read Former Schiavo guardian calls for definitive tests (Tallahassee Democrat, Jan. 26, 2005) Maureen Dowd, op-ed columnist, The New York Times Ms. Dowd, It's not surprising that Rush Limbaugh ignored the National Spinal Cord Injury Association and Not Dead Yet in talking about objectors to "Million Dollar Baby." Limbaugh probably couldn't fit the phrase "disability rights" in a sentence without hacking up a furball. And he is, after all, the guy who thought there was nothing wrong with referring to "the retard vote" back in the 2000 elections. But you approached the disability concerns about this movie in exactly the same way Limbaugh did. By pretending we didn't exist. I doubt you would treat the concerns of other minority rights groups that way, even if you disagreed with them on an issue. The point is, at long last you and Limbaugh have found common ground. You are equally willing to ignore or marginalize us in pursuit of your own agenda. At best, you'll use as ammo in your "culture war" -- and at the worst, we become acceptable collateral damage. I'm not bothering to write to Limbaugh, because the uselessness of doing so is a foregone conclusion. It's probably useless to write to you as well, but at least I'm giving you a try. Read Dowd's Feb. 6. column, Wherefore Art Thou, Clint?