Vol. 14 No. 5 (May 2004), pp.342-344

WRITE TO DEATH: NEWS FRAMING OF THE RIGHT-TO-DIE CONFLICT, FROM QUINLAN’S COMA TO KEVORKIAN’S CONVICTION, by Elizabeth Atwood Gailey.  Westport, CN: Praeger, 2003.  200pp. Hardcover. $39.95.  ISBN: 0275977137.

Reviewed by Raymond A. Whiting, Department of Political Science, Augusta State University.  Email: rwhiting@aug.edu .

Elizabeth Atwood Gailey’s book, WRITE TO DEATH: NEWS FRAMING OF THE RIGHT-TO-DIE CONFLICT, FROM QUINLAN’S COMA TO KEVORKIAN’S CONVICTION, is an ambitious and fascinating look at how the American news media’s coverage may have intentionally or unintentionally encouraged social attitudes that foster support for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in our country.  Using an impressive array of examples from a variety of mainstream news outlets, Gailey argues that the national press systematically advanced pro-euthanasia positions while neglecting or, even worse, denigrating pro-life perspectives. Her extensive study of the area covers such topics as the history of euthanasia, the major ideological positions in the field, as well as the economic factors that may have contributed to the rise of the “right to die” movement.

Gailey’s basic argument starts with the well-established premise that the U.S. news media act as one of our society’s principle moral agents.  In this role the media help the general public gain basic information needed to make moral judgments within both the private and public spheres of our lives. As a result it is understood that media coverage of different areas of public concern can have a significant impact on moral attitudes in the United States.  In this sense it is recognized that the mass media represent one of the most important and influential forces within the market place of ideas in a free society.  The U.S. mass media often serve as intermediary between the private citizen and the economic, social, political and legal enterprises that regulate our lives.  As a professor of communication, Gailey is in good company in arguing that such tremendous power holds great responsibility.  However, it is Gailey’s conclusion that the U.S. media have failed to live up to these responsibilities in addressing the topic of euthanasia.

As one of the principal instruments for the development of cultural values the mass media have the ability to set the national agenda for discussion of issues of moral consequence.  However, if the news media behave ethically to perform this important task, they are obligated to follow certain rules, which, at minimum, would include the following: (1) coverage must present information that is accurate and reliable; (2) news sources must strive to include all relevant information in their coverage and ; (3) news coverage must be balanced so as not to foster one set of values over another. Gailey argues that in the area of euthanasia the mass media have violated both the second and third principles of [*343] communications ethics. Coverage has not only failed to include all relevant information but has been tragically unbalanced in favor of a pro-euthanasia position.

Gailey reaches these conclusions employing a mode of analysis known as “news framing.” This infrequently used analytical process requires detailed examination and characterization of a wide variety of news articles so they can be placed into one of several predetermined coding categories, a process that is quite interesting and well explained in the book.  Indeed one of the book’s strengths the detailed explanation Gailey provides of the news framing process and the compelling defense she gives for its use.  It is easy to see from Gailey’s explanation of the process how it could be employed to investigate a wide variety of contemporary issues.

This process was applied to a wide range of mainstream news articles addressing the issue of euthanasia. Gailey characterized each of the articles as either “pro-euthanasia” or “pro-life” and then compared the results.  Her investigation revealed a startling disparity between the two coding categories.  According to her analysis the vast majority of articles written during the period analyzed—from Karen Ann Quinlan’s coma to Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s conviction—fell into the pro-euthanasia category, thus violating a basic premise of balanced reporting.  Even worse, Gailey’s analysis demonstrates an almost hostile environment toward “right-to-life” perspectives, thus violating the basic ethic of striving to include all relevant facts and viewpoints.

As a result of these failings Gailey argues that the general thrust of media coverage was framed in a way that fostered support for pro-euthanasia perspectives, with a disproportionate number of articles painting euthanasia in a positive light, while either ignoring or criticizing pro-life perspectives.  She contends that this type of coverage damages both the press and the American society as a whole because it degrades the level of trust that the public places in the media as a moral agent, while simultaneously endangering the aged, infirmed and disabled who are most likely to become victims of a society that favors euthanasia.  Thus, Gailey concludes that the media have promoted a culture of death.

The weakness of these conclusions, and ultimately of Gailey’s book itself, is that they may not be supported by the data. While much of Gailey’s work analyzing news coverage in the area of euthanasia is fascinating, I must admit that I read this book alternating between the polar extremes of admiring the sheer scale of her effort and being deeply disappointed by the limited and somewhat biased way she applied the news framing process.  In the end, Gailey’s efforts were marred by two factors.  First, I believe that her overly rigid (and unjustified) coding categories predetermined the condemning results of her study.  And, second, I found it very difficult to conceive of Gailey as a neutral investigator.  In short, commentary throughout the book indicates that she herself was not as neutral as she expects the new media to be.  After all, academics are also important moral agents in our modern society and so are equally bound by the requirements of ethical communication.  

[*344] To elaborate, the coding categories were overly subjective and did not allow an article to be considered balanced and neutral. Ultimately Gailey seems to have employed the old rule of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us,” or “if the article does not support pro-life stances then it is pro-euthanasia,” and this simply is not true.  As a result of this approach, if an author attempted to be neutral in describing a person’s physical condition in medical terms, that author was accused of closing the issue in medical terminology so that it obscured the deeper philosophical (read this pro-life) issues, and the case was coded “pro-euthanasia.”  If the author reported on a legal case and discussed the rights issues addressed by the courts, the author was accused of emphasizing rights and legal issues to the exclusion of the dangers the decision created for the aged or handicapped, and the article was coded “pro-euthanasia.”  If an author avoided both legal and medical terminology but vividly described an individual’s pain and suffering, the article was coded “pro-euthanasia.” Finally, even if an article did discuss “pro-life” perspectives and dangers but, in Gailey’s opinion, did not sufficiently push the pro-life agenda, the article was coded “pro-euthanasia.” 

While these limitations do detract from the impact of the book, Gailey does a masterful job of introducing us to a wide array of issues and concerns about the way our media address important moral issues.  She helps us to understand that the way the media packages issues can critically affect the social, economic and ethical dimensions of our lives and is therefore worthy our attention.  And she raises a red flag that warns us to be more critical and to pay attention to the role mass media plays in our society, particularly when life and death are on the line.  However, it is simply misdirected to conclude that a report analyzing the difficult and inherently interesting legal questions, such as due process, equal protection, privacy rights, among others, involved in the “right to die” controversy is “pro-euthanasia.”

*****************************************************

Copyright 2004 by the author, Raymond A. Whiting.