Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Tuesday NJ papers on a story with legs
What Chris Christie bridge scandal? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi: Editorial
1 out o 5 Americans following story about a governor "very closely" is actually pretty high. Pew thinks not: http://t.co/...
Her digital presence is no doubt a comfort to many of her followers. On the other hand, as cancer experts I consulted pointed out, Adams is the standard-bearer for an approach to cancer that honors the warrior, that may raise false hopes, and that, implicitly, seems to peg patients like my father-in-law as failures.
Guardian deletes Emma Keller post about cancer patient [archived here]
“You know who needs a good talking-to from me so they’ll straighten up and fly right? Cancer patients!” is a thought that has, quite frankly, never crossed my mind. But there it is.
More politics and policy below the fold.
had radiation earlier this afternoon. Spent time with my mom and brother too. Heart rate high, doc asks if there's been any stress. I laugh.
The questions that Keller raises about her own voyeurism and boundaries in the age of social media are valid ones (I explored some of them in a 2010 Los Angeles Times piece), but her method for examining them could not be more wrong.
Ken Jennings—yes, that Ken Jennings—put it best. "Terrified I might get cancer," he tweeted this morning, "because what if Bill and Emma Keller yell at me."
How Times columnist Bill Keller aids Sarah Palin’s “death panel” smear
"I feel rage & disgust at Bill & Emma Kellers' twinsie opinion pieces about @adamslisa. Shoddy, shitty, heartless,...
B. Keller, not quite overtly but certainly between the lines, suggests that Lisa Adams just die, already. He repeatedly compares her struggle, in a bad light, to a “battlefield” or “military’ campaign—this from the man who was a hawk on Iraq, staunchly defended Judy Miller and recently called for the bombing of Syria and backing the Al Qaeda rebels.
Keller repeatedly implies that Lisa Bonchek Adams has brought upon herself any scrutiny he wants to bring to bear on how she's chosen to manage having cancer. Because she tweets about it, he concludes, she's made it a topic for everyone else to write op-eds about.
But that's a flawed analysis. That assumes that the only potential reason not to write an op-ed about whether someone else is having cancer correctly is privacy. In fact, the reason not to write an op-ed about whether someone else is having cancer correctly might be something else entirely: a recognition of the limited value of your own opinion about someone else's medical treatment when you aren't privy to the details, or a decision to exercise restraint, or an understanding of how personal two interlocking decisions might be: the decision to write about cancer, and the decision to read about it.
Every one of the above is better written than the Keller pieces. Clearly it's time for a blogger ethics panel.