Comments on: Making a Fuss About Jenny McCarthy–For All the Wrong Reasons

By: Cynthia Patton

Cynthia Patton — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:09:28 +0000

Jen,
Thanks for your words of encouragement! I will do my best to “shine on.”

Contrary to what you might think, I was speaking with intention. I don’t see the Jenny McCarthy controversy as a political issue–although I can see how you might think that given that I used only conservatives to illustrate my argument. I see this as an issue of censorship. We are all guaranteed the right to free speech, regardless of our viewpoint. Jenny is entitled to her opinion. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with it or not. She’s entitled to express her viewpoint, just like everyone else, on air or off.

By: Jen

Jen — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:00:22 +0000

Ms. Patton,
You have much to offer without using this as a forum for politics. Politics are a personal issue, and while best left to those who truly wish to discuss them, if you choose to do so, please give specific points of concern rather than ‘glomming’ people into loose categories. If you wish your comments to have impact, rather than coming across as stereo-typical, you must back your assertions with facts, not merely identify yourself as a liberal. It cheapens the cause. When women speak, it should be with intention.
Go gently, speak clearly, be well.
Shine on!

By: Cynthia Patton

Cynthia Patton — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:30:46 +0000

I think you are right on all counts. Most journalists have done little to no research on autism from what I can tell. The same tired information just gets used over and over again. And yes, Wakefield gets hammered with no understanding of what he actually said, which frankly, wasn’t all that earth-shattering. Jenny McCarthy probably hasn’t said anything all that profound either. But the other side doesn’t seem to care. They are focused on shutting down the debate. They don’t seem to realize that this strategy is failing miserably.

By: PBCliberal

PBCliberal — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:29:41 +0000

Journalists make decisions about what they include in stories and what they exclude, and in medical issues that means at least some quick study about an issue before you write the first word. As you note, so much of this debate is being carried out through character assassination by both sides, that it raises a question if anyone has done their homework.

The question of what causes autism is fascinating. The question of what causes “adverse events” that arise occasionally from the administration of vaccines is also fascinating. But for some reason, this debate seems to be two sides shouting “murderer” at each other. It seems as if nobody really wants the debate.

When you talk with a journalist who has adopted the new “gatekeeper” meme regarding autism causation and discover that they know very little or nothing about the issue, when you read a piece in which Wakefield is almost immediately introduced as a strawman and they don’t even understand the subtleties of what the study actually said, and when no other organizations or doctors that may have dissenting views are acknowledged, this goes to what qualification the journalist has to act as gatekeeper.

I’m not a McCarthy, a Wakefield or a mercury-causation defender. I think they’re all wrong. But people who misrepresent them in stories designed to impeach them with lies are just as wrong, and probably more dangerous, because a gatekeeper making decisions based on ignorance is a thousand times worse than the occasional charlatan who might occasionally get our ears.