NPR admits bias

[Fellow Traveler]

In a rather decent follow up to the recently posted NPR news item, the editors admit and sort of apologize for a clearly biased piece. Hopefully they'll do better next time.

http://t.co/3zvYwon

[PuppyFluffer]

A little too little and a little too late I think.
I'd be interested in listening to a truely balanced report. I doubt they will air one....at least not yet. The climate isn't quite right yet.

[philomom]

At least some of the comments are good.

[ElliesMomma]

i actually think that was a pretty good self-"correction." are they going to be giving space to goldman or someone to write an anti-circ. piece for their opinion column?

if circumcision wasn't already so ingrained in our culture, the circumcisers would have a heck of a time arguing in favor of the medical necessity of the procedure. unfortunately, so many people who are circumcised or who submitted their sons for circumcision seem to have a psychological need to continue the cutting in order to justify what was already done.

sad, and hard to see our way out of this forest of gloom. but i am delighted to read that the rate of circumcision has fallen so quickly between 2006 and 2009 -- coincidentally for me, those are the same years i had my first (DD) and second (DS) children. 56 percent down to 33 percent. if we can see another 23 percent drop in the next three years the tide will have turned so completely that there's even a possiblity that lawmakers could outlaw the procedure -- like FGM is illegal.

let us hope so!

[Greg B]

It is a step in the right direction, but I also think too little and too late. It never should have aired that way in the first place. And they spend much of the time saving face.

And most importantly, they say nothing about one of the most important reasons for the controversy, the different points of view of the value of a foreskin.

If they really wanted to apologize and show that they are trying to be unbiased, they would have said somethig along the lines of,

"After hearing from so many of you ....we realize we got swept up in the status quo...and unfairly aired this piece in a highly biased way.... minimizing...and not reporting both sides...but after considering the issue we now relaize that this is a valid debate that should be aired and plan to do a future piece on this subject, giving both sides a reasonable chance to give thier view on this surgical procedure."

But, at least they took a baby step in the right direction.

Regards

[Arduinna]

“When the news came out about this startling drop in circumcisions, our intention was to find someone who wasn’t a partisan—someone who could present both sides,” said Rick Holter,” the top editor on the weekend show. “So we decided to go with a bioethicist. And that’s how we settled on Dr. Diekema.”

Diekema, however, on air didn’t turn out to be the non-partisan they intended.

If their intention was to be non partisan then why not question the guy before he is interviewed and find out what his opinion is?

I call foul.

[Arduinna]

Oh I forgot this

The debate —and there clearly is one — centers on two strongly differing beliefs about whether circumcision for a baby boy is medically necessary.

They don't even know what the debate is, this is not the debate. They are totally missing the point, and why is that? Because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves on the issue at all. Given the poor job they have done it seems safe to say that they don't have anyone with any authority there that even cares about the issue. Reading that it's clear they are looking at this as outsiders who are confused as to what all the hubbub is about and are covering it because it's a "hot topic".

[serendipity22]

"After hearing from so many of you ....we realize we got swept up in the status quo...and unfairly aired this piece in a highly biased way.... minimizing...and not reporting both sides...but after considering the issue we now relaize that this is a valid debate that should be aired

I think Diekama represented their bigotry perfectly. It was only the feedback that changed their response.

In other words before we didn't think it was a valid debate.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Oh I forgot this



They don't even know what the debate is, this is not the debate. They are totally missing the point, and why is that? Because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves on the issue at all. Given the poor job they have done it seems safe to say that they don't have anyone with any authority there that even cares about the issue. Reading that it's clear they are looking at this as outsiders who are confused as to what all the hubbub is about and are covering it because it's a "hot topic".

Excellent point. I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

And they also "outed" Diekema's bias.

[brant31]

The debate —and there clearly is one — centers on two strongly differing beliefs about whether circumcision for a baby boy is medically necessary.

Yeah, it does make you wonder... if the AAP has never in its history said that male infant circumcision is medically necessary and we agree on that basic point, then that can't possibly be the discussion. Or does NPR know something we don't?

If Diekema wanted to represent AAP's position as something other than that, it would be momentous. OTOH, if that is Diekema's personal position, then he's out of alignment with even the committee he's on and wouldn't necessarily be a good guest on the show -- the starting point should be that seeing as MIC is elective and all US medical associations are neutral, we would like to know why certain essential information isn't being considered, like: bioethics and human rights, the anatomy and functions of the foreskin, circumcision trends in other developed countries, the impact of subsidies on "true" rates, and long-term complications (with a more comprehensive definition of complication). There's more than enough valid topics to discuss without Diekema's personal bias of the foreskin as the male biohazard.

NPR hasn't done its homework and frankly isn't ready yet to host a enlightening show.