Colleagues,
The link above will take you to the original text of an article written by Benedict Carey for the New York Times, and published on February 3, 2010. On February 4, 2010, the Star Tribune reprinted the article under a different title, crediting Carey; the Star Tribune's version of the article was substantially different and though their version is only 150 words shorter then the Times version, the words were very important to the meaning of the original. Furthermore, the words removed in the 'Strib' version undercut the very serious reservations expressed by one of the medical experts interviewed by the Times; I'm willing to set this gross mishandling aside for the moment, however, to focus on the content that DID make it to print in Minneapolis.
But first, I have to say it: the Star Tribune is not the proud paper it once was - there is really no saving it now and it just seems sad that it maintains the credibility it truly earned under different owners. The Strib should be taken around back and put put out of our misery, and a new and vibrant paper should come to the Twin Cities and serve our news-hungry metropolitan region.
_______
Dear Ms. Barnes:
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with an article the Star Tribune published on February 4, 2010. Entitled, "Brainwaves" by your paper, the NY Times headline was, "Trace of Thought Is Found in ‘Vegetative’ Patient" (B. Carey, 2/3/2010). Your editors decided to elide a substantial portion of the original article, effectively silencing the opposition. This editorial decision, questionable as it is, points to another problem.
The notion that an immobile, unresponsive patient’s consciousness might be trapped in a non-functioning body evokes the most deeply seated fears of any rational person. Contemporary society has accepted that "I think, therefore I am" for hundreds of years. This founding philosophical building block of modernity frees our essences and instantiates the notion of the individual. Our bodies, thus subordinated to our consciousness, have become vessels for our 'souls' – that soul, or consciousness, is still us, with or without a body to move it around.
That the Star Tribune editorial staff elided quotes from experts who were of the opinion that brainwaves do not necessarily indicate the presence of a consciousness, but instead chose only to include the quotes supportive of the 'person trapped in the inert body' hypothesis (the sensational one) was not just bad reporting or just bad science, it was unethical and reproduced a position that was not warranted by the information available. Your paper ought to publish the entire text of the original article and consider its responsibility to its community before printing one side of a story.
First off, I think you should maybe reconsider the whole thing and write the NY Times about the terrible "descartes before the horse" joke.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about using the word "omit" instead of elide, to appeal to the "general reading public" more easily.
It might be helpful (if space allows) to more specifically note what the Star Tribune took out--I looked at both articles and it wasn't quickly apparent to me. (I should have read the strib one first and it may have been more so.) This is something you could maybe do in the first paragraph, so that missing fact is firmly esablished before you get into the philosophical/societal part.
This is a very interesting catch of omission--I wonder what they will say back (if anything)--if it was intentional on their part or sloppiness.
Hope this helps!