Media Watch's take on the whole affair can be viewed here and the transcript can be read here. Needless to say, both the local and international press, as well as the local electronic media, got a bucketing for their failure to confirm Spitzer's comments with him personally. Towards the end of the segment, presenter Monica Attard, who has the demeanour of television's The Nanny (to be fair, that is pretty much a requirement for being the host of this show) couldn't resist sarcastically noting: "Not that ignorance of the subject would get in the way of a bit of moralising," and quoting the following newspaper article as an example of such:
Some of the children misdiagnosed need help, but not necessarily of the chemical kind.What intrigues and somewhat disappoints me is the failure of the blogosphere and the media at large to take the opportunity to critically assess Spitzer's work and opinions in response to the news coverage generated by this blooper. The lack of professionalism of some journalists and the embarrassment that this has caused Spitzer does not make his position unassailable. We have critics deriding common sense (albeit sugar-coated) as 'moralising', when we should be asking ourselves whether there could be anything to what Spitzer was alleged to have said, even if he didn't say it.
Love, patience and help in overcoming problems in the home and at school are the first steps…
— Sunday Herald Sun, Misdiagnosis disorder, 11 March 2007
2 comments:
It's unfortunate, but the merits of a particular view or argument can be obscured by the appreciation of the observer of some subset of the people holding them.
To give an example, if you're on the political left, but on some specific issue (say, space exploration) your views align more closely with George Bush, it's almost impossible to convince other lefties because of the taint of agreeing with a numbskull.
So, sadly, mistakes like this, by random lazy journalists, make your goal of publicizing the failings of psychiatry more widely, more difficult than it should be.
Which, I think, is a long winded way of agreeing with your final point...
Yes, the real issue (as you suggest) is whether or not ADHD is the widespread clinical problem Spitzer is cited (rightly or wrongly) as originally believing. The media has seized upon the question of a reputed psychiatrist's (now contested) credibility, but ultimately this is far, far less important than whether or not a large number of kids actually are ill. The former is basically just easier to write about for lazy journalists who either can't or won't see past ad hominen gossip.
Post a Comment