The Washington Post has the most complete, best reported story on the Terri Schiavo case that I’ve seen so far. I argued last week that mainstream media have failed to mention a crucial part of the story: Michael Schiavo’s treatment of his wife for the past decade, which objectively speaking is far from husbandly and should be paired with any of his claims to speak for his wife’s wishes. On Sunday I predicted another week before media jumped on the angle, which has been explored on other blogs, but lo and behold the Post exceeded my expectations. (The New York Times, alas, didn’t come close.) It’s buried a ways down, but it’s there:
Reflecting on the estrangement of the Schiavo and Schindler families, [Terri’s brother Bobby] Schindler said: “It amazes me that Michael Schiavo is trying to portray himself as a loving, caring husband, when he’s abandoned my sister. She’s been warehoused now over 12 years, and he has been cohabitating with another woman for 10 years and has two children with this woman. That is his family.”
Michael Schiavo has acknowledged the relationship and children, but he and his lawyer have sharply rejected other criticism, saying outside groups and elected officials have seized the issue for political purposes, not out of affection for his wife.
It’s worth asking, if Michael Schiavo has acknowledged his 10-year relationship and children with another woman, why is this the first I’m hearing of it in the mainstream media? Michael’s promises to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life – her only “treatment” is food and water – are on public record from the original malpractice trial where she received $750,000 and he $300,000. His actions since show a 180-degree turn from his promises, which brings up whether he deserves to retain guardianship. Bioethics writer Wesley J. Smith has been following the Schiavo case for years (see his April 2004 piece) and arguably knows it better than any other third party, yet I haven’t seen him quoted anywhere.
Is this a case of MSM (which incidentally I joined a month ago) just taking a while to get to a relevant angle after it bubbles up through blogs, a common occurrence now, or an example of editors so stuck in their template for a story – in this case, the right to die and government interference in medical decisions – that they are figuratively blind to a possibly decisive story angle? I’m honestly not sure. Competitition is at an all-time high between media, with stodgy print and broadcast news outlets vying for audience with quick-responding cable and Internet sources, and reporters are under intense pressure to get the story in ASAP with the basic plotline and nothing else. The historical angle – Michael’s care for Terri up until now – has likely been overlooked through no particular bias by a lot of writers. But editors, who need to have a big-picture element of the story, have less of an excuse. I have a feeling many of them don’t want the Schiavo case to morph into the Peterson case, where one particular detail – for Laci Peterson, her pregnancy; for Terri Schiavo, her husband’s acknowledged behavior toward her – comes to dominate the story…and public opinion.
If this is the case, what is the proper reaction from editors? Should they shield the audience from relevant details because they’re afraid of public opinion being shaped by what they consider a less worthy factor than others? I say an emphatic “no.” Journalists need to weigh information for its relevance, of course, but there should be no doubt in any journalist’s mind that Michael Schiavo’s care for his wife since her collapse is relevant to the story of whether he retains guardianship. Government intervention and judicial roles are important angles, no doubt, but they are insufficient. It’s “our” job to decide and present what is relevant – not to manipulate the audience response.
I’m a tech journalist who’s making a TV show about a college newspaper.