Cynthia Cotts and Dan Kennedy
The Great Cancer Media Ritual
By Dan Kennedy
Posted Thursday, April 27, 2000, at 3:33 PM ETHi, Cynthia--
The news that Rudy Giuliani has prostate cancer is still too fresh for anyone to be able to guess how it's going to play out. Giuliani himself wisely refused to speculate on whether he'll be able to continue his campaign for the Senate. The early stories are pretty much straight-news set pieces, accompanied by sidebars explaining exactly what prostate cancer is, how it's treated, and what you guys at home should be doing to make sure you don't have it, too.
Still, when a public figure--especially a public official, who doesn't have the luxury of hiding--gets sick, a certain media-political ritual kicks in. The key elements:
Laughing at death. Both the New York Times and Washington Post Web sites ran stories that made it sound like Giuliani was having something just short of the time of his life. "A relaxed and smiling Giuliani joked with reporters," wrote the Post's Ben White. The Times
piece, by Christopher Wren and Daniel Wakin, reported that the mayor "appeared relaxed and at times joked with reporters." Not to contradict the on-the-scene reporters, but in a one-minute-plus video clip of the news conference that was on the Times' Web site, Giuliani struck me as subdued and ever-so-slightly unnerved. A transcript of his news conference revealed a few light comments, but this was obviously a serious and somber occasion, with one reporter--himself a cancer survivor--assuring the mayor there is "life after cancer." Relaxation and smiles, in other words, appeared to be in short supply.
The picture of health. Let's face it: Rudy Giuliani is a late-middle-age man who does not look like he's completed any marathons lately, and whose father died of the very disease with which he's just been diagnosed. Yet Giuliani emphasized what tremendous health he's in otherwise, and the media followed suit. The Times: "He ... stressed that he was otherwise in 'terrific' health. 'I feel great,' said the 55-year-old mayor." MSNBC.com: "I'm in otherwise perfect health, just about." And other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Good wishes. No, really. I'm being careful not to use the word insincere, because cancer is a serious thing, and I don't doubt that there was at least some degree of sincerity in the good wishes passed along by people who actually hate his guts. Still, the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton ("Like all New Yorkers"--like all what?--"my prayers and best wishes are with the mayor for a full and speedy recovery"), Al Sharpton ("I would hope that he would do what he needs to do to stabilize his health and move forward"), and Rick Lazio ("My thoughts and prayers are with Mayor Giuliani, his wife, and his family at this difficult time") all paid tribute serves mainly to emphasize how serious Giuliani's condition really is.
It's strange. It seems like Rudy and Hillary have been running for the Senate for the past five years, yet Giuliani still hasn't even formally announced. Only yesterday did HRC agreed to debate Giuliani. Her Web site today touts a CNN-televised town meeting held in Buffalo last night, proclaiming, "Hillary: 'I Will Get Up Everyday [sic] and Work My Heart Out in the Senate,'" as though the real concern was that, if elected, she might lie in bed and smoke crack all day. Giuliani-HRC promised to be a great fight, and maybe it still will be. But now there are more important considerations.
This story is no fun, but this week has been fun. I rarely get to New York, but the next time I do, I'll look you up.
Take care,
Dan
The Great Cancer Media Ritual
By Dan Kennedy
Posted Thursday, April 27, 2000, at 3:33 PM ETCynthia Cotts writes the "Press Clips" column for the Village Voice. Dan Kennedy is the senior writer and media criticfor the Boston Phoenix. Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The John Cassavetes Movie That Changed American Cinema Forever
Am I Wasting My Money if I Give to a Needy Family at Christmas?
Troy Patterson: What I Love About Glee
Hurray! We Won the War on Spam.
Bill Simmons' The Book of Basketball Is a Crude, Fantastic Mess
Thanks, FDA, but We Don't Need Your Protection From Raw Oysters
Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)