The Danger of One-Sided Debate (NY Times Pub. Editor Slams "Death by Veganism" op-ed)

[Elad]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

-snip-

Rosenthal and Shipley said that, over time, they try to publish a variety of voices on the most important issues. Regular op-ed readers have seen a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a lot of other information to help judge Yousef’s statements.

This wasn’t the case, however, with a May 21 op-ed by Nina Planck, an author who writes about food and nutrition. Sensationally headlined “Death by Veganism,” Planck’s piece hit much closer to home than Yousef’s. It said in no uncertain terms that vegans — vegetarians who shun even eggs and dairy products — were endangering the health and even the lives of their children.

-snip-

Rachelle Leesen, a clinical nutritionist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told me that Planck’s article “was extremely inflammatory and full of misinformation.” She and her colleague Brenda Waber pointed me to a 2003 paper by the American Dietetic Association, the nation’s largest organization for food and nutrition professionals. After reviewing the current science, the A.D.A., together with the Dietitians of Canada, declared, “Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.”

-snip-

I won’t rehash the scientific dispute in a case in which Planck has her experts and the A.D.A. paper cited more than 250 studies, but I think The Times owes its readers the other side, published on the op-ed page, not just in five letters to the editor that briefly took issue with her.

-snip-

The prosecutor argued — and the jury believed — that Crown’s parents intentionally starved him to death. News coverage at the time said that the medical examiner, doctors at the hospital to which Crown’s body was taken and an expert nutritionist testified that the baby was not given enough food to survive, regardless of what the food was.

Charles Boring, the Fulton County prosecutor who handled the case, told me it was “absolutely not” about veganism. Planck and Shipley said they were aware of the prosecutor’s contention. Shipley said, “We were also aware, though, that the convicted couple continues to insist that they were trying to raise their infant on a vegan diet.”

But the jury didn’t believe them, and leaving that out put Planck’s whole column on a shaky foundation.

Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that’s not debate. And that’s not healthy.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. The NY Times is just soooo fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LeftyMom]

2. I still don't see any real mention of her "qualifications"

This is a woman who thinks that the ideal diet involves a lot of butter and lard, plus raw meat, milk and eggs. That's really all people need to know- she's a Weston A. Price/"Nourishing Traditions" nut.

The Times should never have even run her opinion piece, because she's not a qualified and authoritative source on nutrition, let alone vegan nutrition or the care of vegan children. Hell, I'm more qualified than she is, and I'm nobody.

[flamingyouth]

9. All you need to know about her is on her website.

It's crazy, and you're right - she has no qualifications.

[depakid]

3. If editors would simply start checking FACTS

and stop printing irresponsible (and often irrational) propaganda- and blackball those who submit dishonest or ill informed articles, this wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately, that seems to involve too much work o their part- and might actually offend some advertisers.

[cullen2382]

4. I remeber this case

I live in a suburb of Atlanta. The AJC made it very clear that this baby did not die because of veganism. If that would have been the case the charges wouldn't have been so harsh. This baby died because it was not being fed enough. The baby was emaciated. They starved that child to death. It had nothing to do with what they were feeding, they weren't feeding the baby anything.

[ismnotwasm]

5. Hmm

Worse than a inflammatory in your face topic, like Hamas or the death of a child, are the subtleties that the media can tell lies with. Anything to my jaded eye that stirs up controversy, IS meant to stir it up with cynical aforethought. Even more telling is what the major newspapers and media do not say, what they do not stir up. I think I'm supposed to be grateful here that the NYT is ever so courageous to present 'both sides'

I did laugh a bit a this;
"Planck said she was aware of the A.D.A.’s position but regarded it as “pandering” to a politically active vegan community."

Those powerful Vegans. I'll go out on a limb here and say that most, if not all. of them are anti-war. I bet Cheney is shaking in his boots.

Do I need a sarcasm smilie?

[Prophet 451]

6. What case are they referring to?

Couple of observations:

1. The arguement that the ADA is "pandering to a politically active vegan lobby" reminds me very strongly of the right-fringe arguement that homosexuality was only declassified as a mental illness due to political pressure. Whenever one party (especially a pundit) starts complaining about decisions made under political pressure, they're usually talking about their own activities. Besides, who is this politically powerful vegan lobby? The only politically powerful vegan (rather than vegetarian) I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

2. The British Medical Association said some years ago that vegetarian or vegan diets were perfectly suitable for all age groups (although in the very old, the very young and pregnant women, supplements might be in order). Since the BMA is made up of medical professionals (i.e. people who are actually medically qualified rather than whores for big pharma) and scrupulously apolitical, that remains case closed as far as I'm concerned (and I'm neither a veggie nor vegan).

3. I'm less worried about media telling only one side of the story as I am about self-censorship. If censorship was as crude as slapping D-notices on everything, it would be obvious (as it is here) but the current atmosphere means that certain debates simply aren't reported and certain subjects are covered in a completely irresponsible way to give an illusion of balance. The illusion of "balance" suggests that if you did a story about, say, Nazi atrocities, you'd also have to find someone to put the case that Hitler was a prince of a man, kind to children and small animals, etc. That's "balance". The global warming thing is a perfect example. The science is overwhelmingly in favour of global warming (in favour of it existing that is) but in order to maintain this phantasm of "balance", we have to have any mention of global warming tagged with words like "controversial" and have some maroon claiming it's all a pack of lies. The constant cries of "liberal bias" have created an atmosphere where the media is now terrified of standing by their stories (see Greg Palast, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", he has a good rant about this). That's self-censorship and it's that, more than anything (except corporate control) which has killed legitimate news reporting.

[yewberry]

7. It's an awful story.

In May, a couple in Georgia were found guilty of murder (not manslaughter) because they starved their 6-week-old son to death. The baby was gaunt, only 3 1/2 pounds when he died and he had never been seen by a doctor. The couple had only fed him soymilk (which in this country is clearly marked as "not to be used as infant formula") and apple juice, a diuretic. It was never made clear whether the baby's mother was able to breastfeed or not. The couple's defense was that they were vegans. It made no sense.

The story got a lot of attention with headlines like "Death By Veganism" and "Vegans Starve Baby to Death." The op-ed to which this thread refers is discussed here, but the NYT link asks for a login. The op-ed was presented without even the illusion of balance. So, this wasn't a case of self-censorship; it was a case of unbalanced and biased reporting.

[Prophet 451]

8. Good Lord

I think you can blame this one on the pack mentality of the press and their love of snappy headlines over actual facts ("Vegans Starve Baby To Death" is true, if entirely misleading).