Media coverage of Schiavo case was disastrous: Canadian study

You already knew the press went hog-wild with the Terry Schiavo story. Remember? Ms Schiavo (right) falls into a persistent vegetative state for years; family opinion fractures along 'She's brain dead'/'No she's isn't' lines; right-wing politicians glom on to the story and hold it up as proof positive of the evils of legalized euthanasia, bringing their agendas all the way to Congress; she finally dies in 2005 after a judge rules in favour of her husband, who requested her feeding tube be removed -- and all the while journalists spread the story around the world in various sensational iterations, fanning the flames of public outrage (and mass confusion) ever higher.

It may not surprise you to learn that those news stories were, as often as not, far from accurate. But you'll be shocked to learn just how extensive the errors were.

This latest review of the Schiavo media coverage is part of a new study by a team of neuroethicists from McGill and Stanford, published online on Wednesday in the journal Neurology (subscription required).

Looking at The New York Times, The Washington Post, the St.-Petersburg Times and The Tampa Tribune, the research team, led by Eric Racine, PhD, of the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, found that 21% of articles claimed, incorrectly, Ms Shiavo's condition would improve (it didn't). The researchers also found:

Statements explicitly denying the PVS diagnosis were found in 6% of articles. Explanations of PVS and other chronic disorders of consciousness were rare ([less than] 1%). Most frequently cited descriptions of behaviors were that the patient responds (10%), reacts (9%), is incapacitated (6%), smiles (5%), and laughs (5%). Withdrawal of life support was described as murder in 9% of articles.

An earlier study of related New York Times articles published in 2005 found that fully 62% erred in explanations of "brain death," writes Dartmouth College neurologist James L Bernat in an accompanying editorial titled "Terry Schiavo's Tragedy and Ours, Too." He continues:

Because print and broadcast media reports influence public perception and opinion about medical conditions, they have a social responsibility to educate by accurately explaining the basic facts necessary to understand the issues.

The solution, conclude both Dr Racine and Dr Bernat, is to encourage broader engagement between neurologists and the public, via the press, when it comes to discussing complex cases like Schiavo's.

But can that solution really help? Dr Bernat admits that although "[s]ome responsible media outlets did attempt to educate readers, viewers, or listeners but many treated the dispute as entertainment."

After all, in an era of declining newspaper readerships and dwindling circulations, isn't entertainment increasingly becoming a priority for many news editors? Undoubtedly.

But perhaps studies like this one, which highlight and publicize the shortcomings and outright failures of large media corporations, might help to remedy the problem by making readers aware of the difference between responsible reporting and entertaining writing -- not that the two are mutually exclusive in the least, but the take-away message is that a balance must be struck, and entertainment mustn't be allowed to trump a full airing of the truth.

Photo: CBC News

Check out our website: www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com