Katie Couric did a rather harsh interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards last night on 60 Minutes. During the interview, Couric used the tabloid like words, "some people would say."

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/artic...terview_1026313

Rush Limbaugh seems to have made some of his typically asinine remarks about the Edwards.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230001

This morning we learned that Tony Snow had cancer.

On Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews said that perhaps it was time to put politics aside and “root” for people. Please watch the Matthews interview and statement before taking part in this discussion.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&a...036697/&fg=



Question for debate:

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

You'll note a difference between Edwards & Snow's announcements and how is was handled by the press.

Edwards would have been better served with a small memo: Hey my wife, whom I dearly love, is sick again. By invoking a full blow Press Conference he opened himself and his wife to a bunch of crap neiither of them needs.

Not entirely. Snow mentioned an operation at a presidential news briefing yesterday, but the cancer announcement came today.

Nothing justifies the almost hostile way Katie Couric asked the questions or Rush Limbaugh's usual pseudo macho warped take. Showing any compassion for the Edwards would be a sign of weakness that, god forbid, doesn't fit the Limbaugh "mystique."

I'm rooting for both of them.

I missed Limbaugh's comments as I always do. I think Couric needs to do "something" to get her noticed. Still I think the Edwards' made a choice. Probably to stave off questions later about his ability to do his job should he manage to become President with a sick wife.

BA,

We've survived sick presidents. Wilson was ill during much of his second term and and Franklin Roosevelt died less than three months after taking the office for the fourth time. Reagan recovered from a near fatal shooting and Eisenhower had at least one heart attack while in office. A sick wife pales in comparison.

If Edwards had not announced his wife's illness, it would have come out eventually.

Then those cruel hoxes like Limbaugh would accuse hikm of a cover up. Convenient!

If Couric wanted publicity, she got the wrong kind.

OK Then why did the Edwards' make such a big deal about this? It's a private matter that shouldn't be publized.

Would you kindly wait until I finish editing before replying? I haved arthritic fingers and it takes a few seconds to make corrections.

Here's my corrected post - edited.




I don't know why Edwards handled it the way he did, but it seems to have helped more than it hurt.

If you click the Media Matters link on Limbaugh, there is a audio available. You can hear first hand his sheer ugliness.

If you can possibly wait a minute, I'll get you the Limbaugh audio on a silver platter.

Limbaugh audio

http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/audio...322-edwards.mp3

Sorry I pop in and out.

I don't need to hear Limbaugh. He's a bloated drug addict. I don't care what he says. He could say something nice and supportive and I still wouldn't care.

However, the Edwards' decision to make this very public has unfortunately left them open to morons and opportunists.

You could be right, but the openess with which they have approached this may well have worked in Edwards' favor.

It's not what a "moron" like Limbaugh says, but the fact that there are several million people who gobble up whatever he offers like it was chocolate ice-cream rather than the substance it actually is. I think you get my drift without my having to trip the profanity filter.

Question for debate:

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

a moral question? "Should"?

It depends on the "public figure." If Robert Mugabe announced that he had less than a month to live because of Disease X, I'd hope that the news media and the public would react with "nuts, a whole month? Do everybody a favor and check out now!" On the other hand, I doubt if anybody except the windbreaker manufacturers was anything other than saddened when Mr. Rogers was ailing.

So my answer would be "honestly." I don't like Edwards, but when I heard about it my reaction was, "man, that sucks for him, and even more for her." So yes, I am rooting for him. I'm rooting for her to pull through, and him to withdraw from public life and focus on caring for his family, in that order of priority.


He made a "big deal" about it because when one chooses to run for the Presidency, the public will evaluate factors that potentially impact the candidate's ability to focus on the job for which he's applying. Furthermore, the information had already leaked out and much buzz was about regarding his likely options, so it behooved him to address the subject.

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

With respect and sympathy for those involved. What Katie Couric did to the Edwards’ was inexcusable, especially coming from her; a professional woman who continued pursuing her career when her husband was diagnosed with terminal cancer. (The overused "h" word applies here) You’d think she would be more understanding. The whole smarmy “some people” device is dishonest. If you have a question, ask it – don’t pass it off on “some people”. “Some people” would have liked to see the situation handled with a little more tact and understanding.

I only read a little about Tony Snow’s announcement. What I read doesn’t come right out and say it, but the prognosis looks very grim. It must be a devastating blow to him and his family.

This isn’t about politics; it’s about two people fighting for their lives, and who very likely will not succeed. This is a time to offer sympathy and understanding to them and their families, not judgments and second-guessing. And that goes for the press too. Like my mama always said, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

I think the media should ask the questions that ordinary Americans, both political and non-political are asking. Many people want to know how Elizabeth is doing, what are her treatment options, how is she coping with the terrible news of her recurrance, how are the children reacting, how is John himself taking it things like this.

More political types (such as residents) would want to know more about the political ramifications: how will this affect his campaign, if his wife gets much sicker and requires alot of attention (which seems likely) how will that affect his campaign, etc.

I think these issues should be examined. It is unfortunate that John Edwards has a reputation for exploiting emotional issues for personal gain, but that is the elephant in the room. Edwards has profited greatly from (among other things) channeling dead babies and accusing the doctors who delivered them of malpractice. He won those cases, although the practices used by the doctors involved have been confirmed as proper. I doubt many people here actually believe that John was able to speak for these babies to the jury, but hey anything is possible.


Mr. Edwards may be (and I stress may) exploiting this issue for personal gain. There certainly are questions about where his priorities are when he has small children, a sick wife, and he insists on hitting the road for the next 18 months (or until he gets bounced by the heavy weights of the race). These questions, while sensitive, are certainly legitimate.

You make some valid points, but I can't think of much that justifies the harsh tretment by America's ex-sweetheart, Katie Couric and america's perrenial sourpuss, Rush Limbaugh.

Edwards was in a vice. If he didn't reveal his wife's illness, he would be accused of a coverup. If he did he has to put up with the Courics and Limbaugh's of this world.

At Coretta Scott's funeral, Bill Clinton won the hearts of the morners by saying "there's a woman in there."

Damn everything else. Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow are humans and deserve support.

Hopefully some of you who keep up with such things can enlighten us with some information. Has Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity offered any right field words of "wisdom" on any of this?

There was talk about Dick Cheney not being healthy enough to run for office, too. And Edwards' wife isn't even a candidate; she's a candidate's spouse.

I think it sad that politics comes before compassion for a person fighting cancer. Cancer doesn't have a political party or a gender. I notice you said nothing about Tony Snow (he is a Republican, after all ).

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

The news media should react in an inquiring and empathetic way! I have a difficult time imaging that John Edwards is exploiting his wife as suggested in earlier posts. Such conjecture by prominent media persons is obnoxious at best! Sometimes the best way to make it through an illness such as this, is to be actively engaged in activity one loves. Mrs. Edwards according to the media is able to take treatment while on the road, and if her appearance and personality suggests anything, it's that she loves campaigning.

Regarding Tony Snow, of course questions can and should be asked by the media, but IMO Tony should be allowed to work if he feels well enough.

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

Tact and sensitivity should be exercised. In Rush Limbaugh's case, I would expect nothing more than ham-handed, partisan venom. So what? The man himself is a caricature--he has trapped himself in this odious persona which fortunately (for him) pays the bills.

I did watch the Katie Couric interview of former Senator and Mrs. Edwards, and yes, the questions were off-putting and came across as quite insensitive. But I think that another thing needs to be considered here. Ms. Couric undoubtedly met with the couple briefly before the interview. We do not know what transpired during the preliminary interview, but I suspect that it probably went this way:

1. Katie asked if there was anything the Edwardses wanted to avoid addressing during the interview, and
2. John and Elizabeth told her that the American public would be asking hard questions, so the hard questions might just as well be addressed by Katie during the interview.

It's certainly better than letting the news be twisted in the tabloids.

It is a human, compassionate response to wince when seeing other people being grilled with questions that we consider to be callous and unfair. But Edwards and his wife are public figures, and this was their opportunity to lay their cards on the table.

As a breast cancer survivor, I am glad not to be a public figure, though!

As a breast cancer survivor, I also appreciate the consideration of fellow posters concerning the feelings of Elizabeth Edwards and of Tony Snow on the recurrences of their cancer. There was a woman in the breast cancer support group I used to attend who no longer looked for remission. But she did not refer to her cancer as terminal but as a chronic illness that continued to require treatment. In this way she communicated to us that she was okay with it.

Katie Couric usually comes across as more sympathetic than she did during that interview. I am suggesting that while she appeared to go overboard with some of the questions, somebody was going to be asking the questions anyway, and Couric still had the image of "perkiness" that she despised for so many years as she entered that interview. Her producers as well as the Edwards family may have suggested that she not hold back.

As it was, those hard questions got some frank answers, and for those who do not consider John Edwards hard-hearted and Elizabeth Edwards an overly-zealous martyr wife for continuing with the campaign, I believe it probably generated a lot of sympathy and good wishes.

As to Couric being hypocritical, I don't think so. I don't know how much cancer treatment cost when her husband was being treated and eventually died from his colon cancer, but Couric's income certainly helped, I am sure, and the terms of her contract might not have allowed her to take the time off to take care of him. There was no Family Leave Act available to Katie Couric when her husband was ill, and compassion seemed even less in vogue with corporate types in the bad old days. If she felt guilt about continuing to work during her husband's illness, Katie certainly has compensated for it by aggressively advocating colon cancer tests and the like while on the Today show lo these many years.

I wouldn't judge Couric too harshly for these reasons.

Let's hope that Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow face many years of quality time together with their loved ones.

As to the leaks from the Edwards campaign that Rush Limbaugh referred to, I hope that the leakers were exposed and fired. The previous posters here have rightly pointed out that cancer and how it affects families, public or private, is not supposed to be treated as just another news story.

How should the news media and the public react to announcements of potentially fatal diseases by public figures?

The public would normally think that it was a gallant effort of the politician to announce something personal. Personally, since I have seen politicians in their natural habitat, the first item to use to gather votes is to play with the publics emotions. The next strategy is to find an excuse once the popular opinion does not look promising to a political candidate. The announcement of a sick wife hits 2 birds with one stone. The candidate is in a no lose situation.

Cancer had been part of many americans and even worldwide. The only reason the media covered this story for a particular person is because she was a wife of a potential presidential candidate. For the media it was another opportunity to create buzz in the news.