The Anatomy of a Right-Wing News Headline

[meegbear]

In Monday's Daily Telegraph, the versatile Nick Allen, who is described as the UK paper's U.S. News Correspondent, covering "all things Hollywood," brings his considerable expertise to bear as he wades into the thicket of the American health care debate with this rare feat of reporting: "U.S. breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels.'" (Please don't miss his scoop from yesterday: "Ailing Zsa Zsa Gabor returns home and refuses more surgery.")

While Allen's Gabor coverage is riveting ("She had a great run. She's 93. She knew five presidents, she knew kings and queens, celebrities..."), his health care coverage is truly terrible. And as journalism, plainly fraudulent. So, you know, blockbuster. Which is exactly how a right-wing river of lies — of "storylines" that can last for months, if not years — ripples from irresponsible reporters, to irresponsible arbiters of fake news like Matt Drudge and Andrew Breitbart, on down to us, the unwitting recipients of terror-ridden "trends" masquerading as blockbuster journalism.

The basis for the "death panels" piece is last month's FDA decision — by a vote of 12-1 — to no longer recommend the widely used cancer drug Avastin for use by late-stage breast cancer patients, because after further clinical trials, it has been determined that the drug (which was given provisional approval for the treatment of breast cancer in 2008 and is also prescribed for colon, kidney, lung, and brain cancer) is not effective for breast cancer patients. Got that? Not effective.

But you don't think that Nick Allen — please don't miss his coverage of Michael Jackson's funeral — is going to let that fact get in his way, do you? Because, as he writes in his investigation, "...it has been claimed that 'cost effectiveness' was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest." Allen then goes on to quote no one in a knowledgeable position who has claimed this.

But wait. There's more. Allen then continues, by saying that "Avastin has been described as 'the poster child for expensive anti-cancer drugs,'" without saying who might have described it as such, or citing any such thing. And then he says that "during the debate, those opposed to the reforms cited Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which decides whether new treatments should be made available on the NHS on the basis of cost effectiveness, as an example of the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a 'death panel.'"

Now, do you see what he did there? Poor Nick Allen (Please don't miss his scoop from last Friday: "Paris Hilton vows to defend herself against hair extension lawsuit") ignored the real reason the FDA advisory panel made its decision on Avastin, set up a straw man position asserted by absolutely no one in his reporting, and then waded through the fetid marsh of his mind all the way to... death panels! Give the boy a gold star for dexterity. But sadly, he's still either a total dimwit or a very shoddy journalist, if you care to make those fine distinctions.

<snip>

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/avastin-death-panels-meme-081810

[HillbillyBob]

1. Hollywood reporter cum medical reporter

sounds like a hack who does not know sh*t about it.

[MadMaddie]

2. These idiots make no sense

So he would prefer that late stage breast cancer patients spend money on an expensive drug that has no effect on their cancer?

How these people get paid is beyond me.

[TroglodyteScholar]

3. K/R

:thumbsup: