News that skews
This is an entry about a story of local interest, but its implications are broader. It is also about truth in newspaper reporting, about credibility, and the problems that develop under a media monopoly.
The other day I came across two versions of the same article, published by two different papers in the Canwest newspaper empire, about Susanne Butscher, the woman in Britain who recently was able to give birth to a baby because her twin sister, Dorothee Tilly, donated one of her ovaries to her almost two years ago. The article was by Ian Austin, and was sent out by the Canwest News Service: it appeared in my local Victoria paper, The Times-Colonist, and presumably was sent out multiple times to the other newspapers in the Canwest chain. The second version I read appeared in The Calgary Herald.
Normally I don’t go hunting for multiple versions of the same story, but I read the Times-Colonist version first and was intrigued to know whether the story had had much additional exposure. So I googled the names (Susanne Butscher and Dorothee Tilly). While lots of other articles turned up, I was immediately struck by the headline in the Calgary Herald version: Vancouver woman becomes aunt and mother. Why did that seem noteworthy?
Well, living in Victoria, I’ve become a tad over-sensitive to how my city is made to disappear off the national stage, as though out here on the We(s)t Coast only Vancouver existed. Because, you see, the Times-Colonist version reported that Dorothee Tilly is from Victoria, yet it’s a detail that was dropped from the national version (which also didn’t list Austin as the author).
Here’s what the hometown version looked like (I bolded a couple of lines for special emphasis):
Donated ovary allows sister to give birth
Ian Austin, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Dorothee Tilly became both an aunt and a mother last week when her twin sister gave birth to baby Maja
Maja was conceived using an egg produced by Tilly’s ovary, which had been transplanted into her identical twin Susanne Butscher.
“It’s a miracle,” Tilly said yesterday. “We have the twin telepathy thing. I feel like I’m a part of her, and she’s a part of me.”
View Larger ImageDorothee Tilly, with her children Johanna, 7, and Lars, 5, is also an aunt of a special nature to her sister’s child.
photocredit: Debra Brash, Times ColonistTilly, 39 and from Victoria, already had two children, but her sister gave up hope of having kids of her own after she went into early menopause.
Then Butscher’s gynecologist told her of groundbreaking research at the Infertility Centre of St. Louis, Mo.
“The doctor told my sister, ‘You and your twin sister are ideal candidates for this surgery,'” said Tilly.
Tilly said her sister’s request initially made her feel “a little awkward.”
“With two children, I counted my blessings,” she said. “My major driving factor was to help her.”
The transplanted ovary helped Butscher’s battle with osteoporosis, and let her stop taking hormones that had their own negative side-effects.
Her daughter’s birth in England almost two years later was an unexpected surprise.
Despite her genetic contribution, Tilly said she’s not Maja’s parent.
“She’s my niece,” said Tilly. “I don’t think I’m the mother.”
Tilly is planning to visit her sister and baby Maja in England sometime soon.
“It’s the gift of life,” she said. “My sister is super happy. She’s trying to get some rest after the whole ‘miracle thing.’ It’s just amazing the attention she’s getting from around the world.”
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008
Compare that to the version in The Calgary Herald (which I’m guessing is also how it looked if it ran in any of the other Canwest papers):
Vancouver woman becomes aunt and mother
Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Dorothee Tilly became both an aunt and a mother last week when her twin sister gave birth to baby Maja.
Maja was conceived using an egg produced by Tilly’s ovary, which had been transplanted into her identical twin Susanne Butscher.
“It’s a miracle,” Tilly said Tuesday. “We have the twin telepathy thing. I feel like I’m a part of her, and she’s a part of me.”
Tilly, a 39-year-old Vancouver Island resident, already had two children, but her sister gave up hope of having kids of her own after she went into early menopause.
Then Butscher’s gynecologist told her of the groundbreaking research at the Infertility Centre of St. Louis, Mo.
“The doctor told my sister, ‘You and your twin sister are ideal candidates for this surgery,’ ” said Tilly.
Tilly said her sister’s request initially made her feel “a little awkward.”
“With two children, I counted my blessings,” she said. “My major driving factor was to help her.”
The transplanted ovary helped Butscher’s battle with osteoporosis, and let her stop taking hormones that had their own negative side-effects.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
While there isn’t a huge difference between the two versions, there is enough of one to make me worry about the veracity of what I can read in the papers. Yes, Victoria is on Vancouver Island, so it’s technically not a lie to say that Dorothee Tilly is from Vancouver Island – but why the change in Austin’s text from “Tilly, 39 and from Victoria” to “Tilly, a 39-year-old Vancounver Island resident”?
And what about the headlines? The first version has an accurate, non-sensational headline, and the article specifically includes Tilly’s disclaimer about not feeling like she’s the “mother” of the new baby. The second version not only leaves out the disclaimer (which was an affirmation of science – “She’s my niece” – and appropriate kinship – “I don’t think I’m the mother”), but in fact offers a headline worthy of The National Enquirer. With that headline, most readers will probably miss the point of the transplant, which was to help Butscher in her battle with osteoporosis: “[Butscher’s] daughter’s birth in England almost two years later was an unexpected surprise.” That sentence was left out of the national version.
When I set out to write this post, I was most concerned by how the national version of the article managed to erase Victoria from the map. I’m still concerned by that – it’s a serious issue in my book since it happens too often.
But compare the two versions and decide. From where I sit I conclude that the locally reported story is stronger, more vivid and accurate; and that dissemination via a media monopoly results in stories that are bereft of complexity and therefore realism, and are skewed to grab eyeballs (perhaps through some level of sensationalism).
I can only imagine that the change from Victoria to Vancouver Island could have been done in case non-Canadian media picked up the story. There are lots of Victorias in the world.
The sensationalism is more disturbing in my book.
Comment by melanie — November 22, 2008 #
Vancouver Island is such a vague geographical reference. You could be an urban dweller in Victoria or living in a remote shack outside Port Hardy. A news story that refers to New York either means Manhattan *or* upstate NY, never either–it always makes a difference.
It reminds me of a recent episode of the network TV dramatic series “House” where the main character is given a “first class plane ticket to Vancouver Island”.
Comment by Robert Randall — November 22, 2008 #
@ melanie: yes, the “freak” aspect of the (other) headline is annoying – and so typical.
.
@ Rob: seriously, on House?? A “first class plane ticket to Vancouver Island” – sort of like the old Philadelphia joke, except worse? Oh, that’s depressing. (But kinda funny, too!)
Comment by Yule — November 22, 2008 #