FAIR ACTION ALERT - Stossel's smear of Edwards

[swag]

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-edwards-lawyers.html

ACTION ALERT:
Will ABC Balance Stossel's Election Year Axe-Grinding?

July 30, 2004

ABC commentator and anchor John Stossel holds a rare position in
television news: His commentaries air unopposed on a network news show.

But after Stossel's July 23 "Give Me A Break" segment on 20/20 about
Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, ABC viewers might be wondering what the network will do to balance Stossel's partisanship.

Stossel's piece focused on Edwards' history as an attorney. This is bad news to Stossel, who in 1997 was given a full hour for his special "The Trouble with Lawyers," which depicted the profession as overzealous and greedy. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, Stossel began by noting that Edwards could be in for a pay cut: "Should he become the next vice president, he'll make more than $200,000 a year. That's a big step down from the millions he once made as a trial lawyer."

But more than anything in particular that Edwards did as a lawyer, the
real point seemed to be to remind viewers of all the bad things lawyers do. "Today, the trial lawyers may be the most powerful profession in America," Stossel explained. "We always hear about how they help the little guy. But we rarely hear about the unintended consequences of what they do. And they can be nasty. With John Edwards potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency, we ought to take a look at what his most passionate supporters really do."

With that, Stossel moved on to profiling Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a
prominent attorney, with "If Edwards is effective, this man must be
super-effective," all that's offered by way of transition. Stossel
immediately found a way to link Scruggs and Edwards: "Of course, the money for Scruggs' planes and the millions Edwards made comes from someone, and that someone is you, the consumer." Stossel has a litany of complaints against lawyers , familiar to anyone acquainted with the conservative tort reform movement (See Extra!, 3-4/04): Fewer corporations are making vaccines because of lawyers. Lawyers make products more costly and quash innovation; "lifesaving products are especially penalized." Lawyers are ruining hospital care since they "have bred so much fear that patients now suffer more pain and may be less safe because doctors are so fearful of being sued."

Stossel never went too far without reminding viewers that Edwards directly benefited from their burdens: "By being a consumer, you helped pay for Dickie Scruggs' plane and John Edwards' three homes." Stossel encouraged viewers to tie their impression of Edwards to the actions of other lawyers, which would be like noting that George W. Bush was once in the oil business, then documenting the environmental impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

When Stossel does get to describing actual cases that Edwards tried in
court, he reaches for conclusions that exceed the available facts.
Stossel claimed that Edwards "made millions suing doctors and hospitals on behalf of people whose children were born with cerebral palsy." Edwards claimed, according to Stossel, that oxygen deprivation was a factor, a situation that could have been avoided if the doctor had performed a Caesarean section. Stossel lamented that "one thing doctors learned from Edwards' art form was to do more C-sections. C-sections are more common today for many reasons, but fear of a cerebral palsy lawsuit has had a big impact. Since 1970, C-sections have gone up from 6 percent of all births to 26 percent."

How much of the increase in C-sections is due to medical judgment, rather than fear of lawsuits? Stossel doesn't address the question. Dr. Luis Sanchez-Ramos, an obstetrics professor at the University of Florida, noted in the British Medical Journal (2/12/94) that "in Brazil and Mexico, where malpractice is not a problem, the caesarean section rate is still high." Sanchez-Ramos suggested that profit may be another motive driving C-sections, pointing out that rates are higher in for-profit hospitals and with patients who have good health insurance.

But Stossel focused on lawsuits as the core problem: "So are women today suffering more pain, even risking their lives on unnecessary surgery, partly because lawyers like John Edwards scared doctors?" It's a complex question, depending among other issues on how much of the surgery is actually "unnecessary." But Stossel's answer just assumes that trial lawyers are the villains: "Well, maybe all Edwards' cases were good ones, but the fearful atmosphere that lawsuits create has far-reaching consequences." That we should see malpractice suits as making doctors "fearful" rather than "careful" is something that the ABC journalist asserts rather than explains.

Of course, political candidates are fair game for criticism. But given Stossel's politics, it's unlikely that he will be doing a similar attack on George W. Bush or Dick Cheney this campaign season-- certainly not one that fits in with their opponents' talking points so well. (When Edwards was picked by Kerry, the Republican National Committee's website headlined its response, "Who Is John Edwards? A Disingenuous, Unaccomplished Liberal And Friend To Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.")

When ABC's parent company Disney refused to allow its Miramax subsidiary to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," company CEO Michael Eisner offered this rationale (5/5/04): "We just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year." So why does ABC air one-sided political commentary during an election year?

ACTION:
Please contact ABC and ask that 20/20 provide a counter-weight to
Stossel's partisan commentaries-- especially in an election year.

CONTACT:
ABC News
Phone: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail]

Or you can use ABC's email form:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_email_form.html

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [e-mail] with your correspondence.

Read more of Stossel's commentary here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/GMAB_edwards_040723-1.html


----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html

SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [e-mail] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to [e-mail] .

You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
[phone]
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [e-mail]

[LiberalBushFan]

1. Hire sometime to do "give me a break"

about media whores.

[calico1]

2. I saw that and was disgusted.

Funny thing is he made it sound as though all doctors are these poor victims and must have all these extra tests done just to protect themselves from these crooked lawyers. Of course no doctors do any of this just to make more money! :eyes: Its clear Stossel hates Kerry/Edwards. He was practially fuming. After the segment was run, Barbara Walters made it a point to say that his views do not necessarily reflect the opinons of ABC. Of course there are crooked lawyers out there but his totally one sided segment was totally irresponsible. He is a jerk. Thanks for the links.

[PATRICK]

3. Of course ABC airs the opinions

of people not worth airing in the first place. I thought Stossel wouldn't recover from his abuse of children he interviewed in attack mode a while back, angering their parents for starters and truth in principle. More than enough about Stossel to warrant a segment about his place in public affairs.

Before they make their spiels they should do some sort of honest declaration "I am John Stossel and I am a Rightaholic."

Let all the worms come out from under the rotten log and wither.

[wish_I_could_vote]

4. I wrote and complained the day after it aired.

It's not much, but every little bit helps.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. DOWN WITH DISNEY!!!

DAS NAZI HITLER DISNEY WILL FEEL THE RATH OF A JOHN KERRY
FCC AND IRS!!!