Loading ...Ethicists, ‘experts’ criticize CNN doctor
flockwoodFrom their perches in the United States, safe, comfortable, well-paid Pharisees are questioning whether it’s appropriate for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. (scroll down to verse 10).
Oops. Wrong century. Wrong continent. Wrong group of naysayers. Actually, in this instance, it’s journalism Pharisees. And they’re right here in 2010. And they’re knocking CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Gupta’s sin? He’s healing Haitian earthquake victims live on cable news.
Gupta can’t be a reporter and a doctor, they sniff. Why? Well, one of the Fundamental Truths of the Church of Journalism is that journalists should cover news, not make news. Objectivity. Neutrality. Detachment. Etc.
This principle works great in most instances. It works fine when you’re covering a story with two sides. Left vs. right. Conservative vs. liberal. Republican vs. Democrat. Rich vs. Poor.
But this isn’t the right approach for responding to a natural disaster because there aren’t two sides to a disaster. In these instances, inaction, impassivity, neutrality aren’t just bad journalism. They are, potentially, evil.
Let the experts, safe in the United States, grumble. Let the naysayers, who don’t smell the stench of death second guess. Let the know-it-alls, with full refrigerators and warm beds, criticize.
Sanjay Gupta should follow his conscience and the Hippocratic Oath while he’s in Haiti.
After the ethicists in the United States are finished critiquing the good doctor, perhaps they’ll be able to tell us how many journalists can dance on the head of a pin…
January 15th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Wow, that’s pretty moronic. I guess someone just wants their fifteen minutes.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Well said Frank.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Here is a typical example of Good Samaritan. Price Diana could have been saved if reporters at her accident site would have done same thing as Dr. Gupta is doing at Haiti, save life first if you can, then report. Report is for life not vice versa.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Very well said indeed, Frank.
Julian, Princess Diana could also have been saved if, when she decided to ride in a car being driven a hundred miles an hour by a drunk Frenchman, because the Ritz in Paris (which her boyfriend’s father owned), wasn’t good enough for their tryst, she’d have just worn her seatbelt.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
OK, let’s take a look at the other side for a moment.
Does anyone agree with the following?
“It muddles the journalistic reporting. It clouds the lens in terms of the independent observation and reporting.”
If so, what would you do to mitigate this problem?
The critic also expressed concerns about what he called the “marketing element”. There’s nothing new about media using sensational stories to sell newspapers or advertising, but that doesn’t make it right. Imagine a doctor/reporter selecting a patient based more on visual appeal than need, to help the ratings. Weirder stuff has happened in the history of journalism.