|
LETTERSI want to comment on the e-mails that Bob Finn sends me (and other NASW member) via nasw-jobs. This service is VERY helpful and is one of the best services that I receive from NASW. Being a freelancer I don’t have a lot of time looking for new jobs. This helps me to locate new projects, and I wanted you to know how valuable it is. Thank you. William Arthur Atkins I found your comments on the visa problems of foreign journalists (SW, Fall 2003, p. 4) to be most relevant. In the latest ISWA newsletter, I urged all my folks to check the regulations carefully before they attempted to enter the USA. Jim Cornell, President Your unskeptical article on the Addiction Studies Program, at Wake Forest University (SW, Fall 2003, pp. 8-9), is, sadly, mind-numbingly typical of the lack of normal journalistic common sense in addiction coverage. Did it ever occur to your reporter to look at the history of NIDA when it comes to telling the “truth” about drugs—or the history of advocate Sue Rusche? The marijuana bale anecdote was telling; Brian Vastag claimed it was a bad PR move to say that the worst thing that could happen in relation to marijuana use was to have a bale of it fall on your head. In fact, the statement is essentially accurate: It is impossible to overdose on marijuana and so long as one does not operate dangerous equipment while high, there has never been any real evidence of long-term dangers. The “truth” about drugs according to the government is one of the biggest frauds of our time—and a journalism program set up by a government researcher and an anti-drug activist who supports one of the most abusive and dangerous drug treatment programs ever known is hardly likely to tell the whole story. Further, Sue Rusche opposes needle exchange—which everyone from the CDC to the National Academy of Sciences has found effective for preventing HIV in drug users without increasing addiction. Is she really the right person to be teaching journalists how to cover addiction? Maia Szalavitz, Freelance Response: I’m a bit baffled by Ms. Szalavitz’s letter. She conflates my description of a two-day symposium for journalists with an attempt to investigate and evaluate the 30-year war on drugs. She writes that I “claimed it was a bad PR move” for David Friedman to say that marijuana is most dangerous when a bale of it falls on your head. I did no such thing. I reported that after Friedmann’s quote was published, NIDA started media training its staff. I never evaluated whether his statement was a good PR move or a bad one. Szalavitz then charges me with failing to investigate the background of the organizers of the Addiction Studies Program for Journalists, when it should have been clear to any reader that the purpose of my article was simply to describe the program. As I note in my piece, speakers sponsored by the program advocate changes to the nation’s approach to dealing with drug abuse and addiction, a goal that Szalavitz certainly seems to endorse. Unfortunately, her letter serves as an example of why those efforts continue to founder: Advocates of more reasonable approaches toward drugs tend toward the shrill; their anger eclipses their ideas, driving away potential supporters and, by comparison, casting proponents of the destructive and unwinnable “war” into a more favorable light. As any good writer knows, how you say it is often more important than what it is you have to say. Brian Vastag, Correspondent The latest edition of ScienceWriters is superb, as always, but the article by Mark Fitzgerald (“A Medical Disaster,” Editor & Publisher, July 14, 2003) raises an interesting question. Journalists, he writes, complain the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules inhibit coverage of stories by preventing them from knowing the names, etc., of people treated by hospitals. Not made clear is what right journalists have to an exception to get this data in the first place. The implication is that journalists would use the information wisely, but a look at the “ratings ueber alles” coverage on big-city television news programs makes that difficult to argue. If I get hurt and am sent to a hospital, I don’t see why the hospital should have the right to release my name, age, and address to journalists without my permission. If the accident or crime was sufficiently interesting, all that would do is lead to reporters and lawyers badgering my family. Another question: Would it stand up in court if the rule was, “You can give names and details to journalists, but not to personal injury attorneys?” Matt Bille, Freelance I applaud ScienceWriters for publishing “Sick on the Inside” (SW, Fall 2003, p.6). Wil Hylton did an outstanding job in explaining why Americans should care about the treatment of inmates beyond obvious humanitarian and legal reasons: Steel bars and stone walls cannot be made strong enough to contain the medical and social diseases now brewing in our nation’s correctional facilities. My only criticism is it gave far too much credit to me and did not mention Kim Bell, Mandy Davis, and fellow NASW member Bill Allen. They deserve the lion’s share of the credit for the multiple-award winning St. Louis Post-Dispatch series, “Death, Neglect, and the Bottom Line.” I was not the “organizing force” behind the series, and I did not use my “lofty connections” to get Kim and Bill into CMS facilities. They did their outstanding investigative reporting on their own with no help from me. That series was published more than five years ago. Has anything changed
in the care of prisoners? Few journalists have covered this problem. What
does get reported suggests that the treatment of the incarcerated—especially
those with mental illness—continues to be a humanitarian nightmare. Andrew Skolnick, Freelance Norman Bauman’s predicament in gaining library access (SW, Fall 2003, p.14) is shared by thousands of independent scholars—retired or otherwise unaffiliated with a college or university. For nearly 25 years, efforts to overcome this myopia have been waged with some success by the nonprofit National Coalition of Independent Scholars, an affiliate of the American Council of Learned Societies. Since science writers often write books that measure up to scholarly standards, they might be interested in finding out more about NAIS and possibly joining. NCIS has 11 affiliates throughout the country. Further information is available from NCIS, P.O. Box 5743, Berkeley, Calif. 94705 or www.ncis.org. Richard I. Magat (retired) |