Mean Media

I won't deny that the first thing that drew me to the New York Times' Capitol Feud article was the photograph of the little boy that accompanied it. He looks strikingly like my only sibling—another bespectacled, junior high student with shaggy, blond hair.

Oddly enough, the article content could also be laced with the short biography of my kid brother. Herszenhorn's piece is about 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who (along with a sister) relied on the State Children's Health Insurance Program for treatment of severe brain injuries received in a car crash. My little brother, Matt, lost the vision in his right eye in a hunting accident when he was 10. He still enjoys hunting today, and it is beyond my realm of comprehension why he would ever continue after having BBs lodged into his face. But that is beside the point.

Graeme's case is being noted by the NY Times because he has been ''enlisted'' by Democrats to give the response to President Bush and other Republican officials who think that the program is unnecessary. And like anything partisan cast into the realm of the American media, poor little Graeme (as well as the rest of the Frost family) has been figuratively torn to shreds.

I would be lying if I claimed to be well-informed about the workings of and debate about the S-chip. After watching what little money my family had saved up in the first place get dumped into medical bills (even after insurance settlements with the family of the kid who was messing around with the gun that caused Matt's injuries) however, I can't help but feel that the State Children's Health Insurance Program is a good idea.

It was the ''soft news'' in this article that grabbed my attention in the first place, and it was the ''soft news'' that held it throughout. I don't know if it's the liberal in me or the big sister in me (who gets a little squishy when she sees a photograph of a troubled, chapped-lip preteen) that did it, but I can't help but feel horrible for Graeme and his family. They might have signed up for their position as the poster family for this debate (or not, I don't know), but having their lives picked apart by every lowly blogger who takes time to touch on the news? That seems plain unfair.

The most noteworthy marvel is the ''fact checking'' that went on at every level. For conservative critics, the family is rich, their house is expensive, the father is ''choosing'' not to provide for his children, and Graeme goes to a spendy private school. For the liberal NY Times reporter, the house is of average price (with concrete countertops), the father's business is failing, Graeme is at school on scholarship, and the Frosts are victims to the –nth degree.

Like I said before, I identify with and pity the family—medical bills are hard enough, but being the centerpiece of a partisan debate in Washington has got to take the biscuit. There is no position to be had on the fact-checking however. In all reality, can there be a position there? Who do I believe? I know who I want to believe! Who is more believable (the Times can't be the only source-reliable medium reporting to us, can they?)?

With that, I must say that this entry has no infinite wisdom to share or position to argue for. It is merely meant to function as a note that I'm taking a seat here, with no popcorn, to marvel at the Media Beast and the Wikipedia-esque data it can churn out to make a point. A month-long show later, I have to ask: which sources are we supposed to believe?

Ironically, I think the Blog Beast is at the bottom of the list. Who next?