Archive for the ‘safety’ Category
In what was a timely follow-up to my analysis of the Toronto Sun story published earlier this week, Rebecca Woolington of The Oregonian brings us a story profiling a San Diego police officer hosting a four-hour training session for fellow police officers in Oregon’s Washington County. The training is far from standard, as Brian Herritt will be instructing police officers on how to respond to autistic children. The father of an autistic child himself, Herritt’s inspiration began when his son eloped at the age of three and he found himself relying on police to find him. While his son was discovered safely, Herritt noticed police may be unprepared to handle autistic children, his experience as a parent and law enforcement official created a dedication to teaching cops how to recognize signs of autism and deescalate situations. Conversely, he also wants to teach parents the mentality of police officers.
The Autism Society of Oregon is funding the training session, and one likely subject will be the potential of confusing symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (people talking to themselves or fixating on objects) with socially awkward behaviors that exhibit signs of drug and alcohol use. Herritt also explains how to best take autistic people into custody, what crimes they are most likely to commit or fall victim to, and to avoid assuming someone isn’t cooperating because they’re not responding to questions or orders (as explained many times on this site, some autistic people don’t communicate verbally).
Autistic people must follow the laws like everyone else, but after the ordeal I dissected in Toronto, Herritt’s mission is the perfect antidote to solve issues surrounding lack of awareness of autism in law enforcement. One training session won’t make police experts, but because Herritt is a fellow officer with an autistic child, his ability to communicate to both parents and cops is more effective. He understands the wishes of parents to accommodate autism spectrum disorder when approached and the rapid responses officers must sometimes make on or off-duty. As I mentioned in the last story, there will be increasing encounters between autistic people and police officers as the autism population grows and ages, which likely means Herritt won’t be the only cop to offer this training in the future.
There’s also a possibility of a follow-up story in The Oregonian as the training session doesn’t take place until next Wednesday, creating a set-up to report the response of attendants. Many are representatives of the sheriff’s office and local police departments in Oregon, so finding ties for the reading audience would not require much effort. Continuing to cover this story could also reveal Herritt’s future plans for these training sessions; the fact he is traveling to Oregon from the San Diego area brings forth the desire to promote a subset of knowledge to a group who most likely will need them on future assignments. Outside the region, other news editors and reporters may find citizens similar to Herritt who share his goal.
Woolington spends the first half of the story explaining Herritt’s background and his drive to educate other officers before switching to local sources for their reaction regarding his Oregon visit. Woolington indirectly highlights why autism training will matter to any kind of safety official in the long-term: parents already in the business are getting a first-hand experience with the disability.
Our latest story is part reporting, part editorial hailing from our neighbor to the north, Canada. Michele Mandel covers an incident at the Fairbank Memorial Day Care Centre where Toronto Police are under fire from autism advocacy groups for their July 28th handling of a nine-year-old boy with Asperger’s Syndrome who had to be physically restrained after throwing a tantrum. Police handcuffed the boy for five minutes before the mobile crisis intervention team arrived and calmed him down. While autism groups protest that less drastic restraint measures could have been employed, police say the boy was a danger to himself and waiting for the crisis team could have posed a safety hazard.
The boy blamed his tantrum on being bullied during the lunch hour. Mandel quoted him saying he holds his mother’s hand whenever he sees a cop car. Naturally, parents of autistic children are furious, at least according to Autism Ontario. The executive director says they offer training for law enforcement on handling people with mental disabilities, but few have taken advantage of the program unlike their colleagues in Ottawa.
I have some question on the date’s accuracy in the published article. If the incident did occur on July 28th, having an article published now would be horrendously ill-timed. There is a possibility the story has a typo and the incident happened on August 28th, which would better justify releasing the story on its publication date (August 30th). With parents as emotionally charged as they are, notwithstanding parents of autistic children, waiting an entire month before expressing outrage over a controversial situation makes little sense.
Regarding the story itself, law enforcement is almost always a hotbed when it comes to controversy. This doesn’t suggest an antagonistic relationship between journalists and police (you need to establish a positive connection if assigned to a crime beat), but material that suggests public service officials aren’t performing their job description makes for saucy news material. Generally, this controversy arises when police are seen abusing their role. In Mandel’s story, the argument is police not considering the well-being of the child with Asperger’s Syndrome who had to be restrained. When pursuing an event as it’s occurring, police have to be prepared for rapid responses to a multitude of situations to protect themselves and/or the people they intervene. The “gray area” illuminates how people who are trained to keep communities safe can adapt to the autism spectrum, as their emotional output doesn’t fall within expected norms. This story may spur Toronto’s law enforcement to seek more training, or lead to further coverage on public readiness to handle a population prone to mental outbursts.
On the story itself, I’m not familiar with the ethical standards of Canadian journalism, but the reporter appears to side with autism organizations and suggesting the response was mishandled. Mandel uses strong words and questions why less forceful measures weren’t used to begin with, creating the impression that Toronto police were the “bad guys” in the case. The discussion shouldn’t be about who’s right or wrong, but instead included for the ultimate concern of how an increasing number of autistic people throughout the world can be approached.
Lindsay Machak of the Northwest Indiana Times covered an incident whose psychological implications weren’t fully explored, but bound to stir up thoughts to readers. Julia Cox, who successfully campaigned to have a sign placed in her neighborhood alerting motorists of her autistic son who sporadically elopes, believes a vandal targeted her family because of her son. Underneath the sign (seen with Julia in the photo), someone painted the words “Retard F U.” Cox later painted over the words to avoid other children from seeing the language, and a graffiti team later returned the sign to its normal state.
However, local police aren’t so sure the vandalism was indeed a hate crime, with Lansing police saying the crime didn’t go far enough to be investigated as such, even though they note the distastefulness of the vandal’s word selection. Police are also reluctant to conduct a full investigation because there is no known offender and little information about who is possibly responsible. Cox is simply hoping the sign won’t be vandalized in this manner again.
From a criminal perspective, graffiti is commonplace but detection is not consistent. Usually, only paint is needed to make a graffiti hit on property. In neighborhoods such as Cox’s, vandals can avoid losing their cover by performing graffiti at a time when most of its residents are sleeping, as even a few public places aren’t equipped with surveillance systems to discourage such behavior. In terms of enforcement, police may allocate resources to combating more serious crimes that can more severely compromise the public’s safety, unless such graffiti instigates violent behavior. However, they are not completely immune to being reported should a passerby and/or night owl take notice, and those who are caught won’t escape without penalty.
Cox’s claim that the sign’s vandalism was the result of a hate crime is also not easy to process. Hate crimes themselves carry a legal definition, used to describe bias-motivated violence on the basis of personal characteristics. Traits include race, religion, appearance, nationality, language and disability. Incidents include offensive graffiti and/or damage to property on the basis of personal characteristics, which would contradict quotes given by the Lansing police officer in the story if simple definitions were applied. Based on what the Lansing police officer said, it’s possible he or his department have processed more grotesque hate crimes within his jurisdiction that went beyond graffiti on public property, or he could have been speaking generically.
Furthermore, without any clues to the culprit, investigating the incident as a hate crime is difficult to justify. Theoretically, Cox herself could have vandalized the sign to attract attention to herself, although committing such an act would be illogical considering the amount of time lobbying and receiving a sign to alert people about her son. If the perpetrator was indeed found, as was the case in a January incident in the Twin Cities reported by several news outlets (I linked WCCO’s version), finding ground to consider the incident a hate crime would be less difficult.
This also brings up the emotional investment of mothers regarding their children born with a “disadvantage.” Paternal instincts influence their thought process, which can lead them to decisions or beliefs they wouldn’t otherwise possess. There’s no way to determine if Cox would still believe such an act would be a hate crime if autism didn’t affect her personally. This is not to say having children leads parents to making illogical, impulsive decisions, but their feelings may simply reflect a retaliatory mood should they believe their children are under attack. Thoughts of vengeance are nothing new, if recent media coverage of Casey Anthony’s trial provide sociological indications.
The story itself does more than simple police blotter because its nature doesn’t carry the repetition of “typical” crimes. Making specific signs warning of handicapped people has been somewhat controversial, as concerns, such as what Machak reports, creep into the public psyche. Other worries reflect potential consequences of publicly “transmitting” that at least one person in the neighborhood suffers a mental disability. Machak deduces that leading the story with the events that led to the sign would clarify why its vandalism was troublesome, as most readers would ponder over a “Caution: Handicapped Person” versus “Stop” or “Yield.”
Future story paths will be dependent on what happens to the sign. If graffiti continues, stories on public safety for the disabled may appear, which may lead to a closer mainstream examination of addressing the public about people who suffer from autism and other disorders. It could also re-open a dialogue on the struggle for acceptance in the face of other characteristics.
As Andrew Wakefield continues to press forward with the vaccine link controversy (which is now being compared to other political debates where opponents repeatedly deny what almost all research suggests), the battle to address the autism spectrum in children found another metaphorical maze in Maryland. In a story originally published by The Baltimore Sun and syndicated by Los Angeles Times, a Maryland doctor sought to regain his medical license after suspension by the Maryland Board of Physicians. The doctor, Mark Geier, uses an alternative form of autism treatment with no scientific backing, injecting patients with Lupron, a drug approved to treat prostate cancer in men and endometriosis in women.
Geier believes testosterone is elevated in autistic children (and a study I discussed in my blitzkrieg of posts last month concurs with his opinion) and worsens the vaccine-related mercury toxicity they believe is causing autism in children, which is why he uses Lupron, as the drug suppresses testosterone production. However, the Maryland Board of Physicians reported that Geier placed children at risk with improper diagnoses and misrepresenting his credentials.
Geier’s branch is small in the story’s “tree.” Frank D. Roylance and Meredith Cohn, the writers who penned this story, summarize a point previously covered in mainstream press coverage but quantify what is known inside the autism community: the slow pace of identifying causes and effective treatments for autism lead to a proliferation of unproven treatments that grow wildly in popularity (the gluten and casein-free diet is one example). 38,000 families participating in a database at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore have reported 381 different treatments. Families use five treatments simultaneously on average, spending around $500 per treatment. Do the math, and that’s $2,500 a month and $30,000 annually. Compounding the problem, a source from Kennedy Krieger’s Interactive Autism Network says only 10 percent of autistic children are enrolled at IAN or other research studies.
Roylance and Cohn highlight the low percentage by including three parent perspectives. We hear from Alison Singer, who was featured in Autism Speaks’ Autism Every Day and is co-founder of the Autism Science Foundation. While she tried several alternative treatments for her autistic daughter, she now advocates any new treatment should seek for a scientific study. Other mothers shared their experience with alternative treatments, and ultimately refused some because they lacked scientific evidence.
Despite the small percentage of autistic children enrolled in research studies, data from the IAN project is helping identify widely-used therapies so they can be subjected to scientific testing. Although science is not always accepted (the vaccine controversy still burns despite a mountain of evidence disproving a link), finding treatments proven to work can reduce the likelihood of parents making irrational decisions about their autistic children. Based on Kennedy Krieger’s data, a lot of irrationality exists. With families giving their children an average of five treatments for autism simultaneously, even if those treatments mitigate the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, there’s no way to decipher which treatment actually works. With the money and time invested in so many treatments without scientific backing, little discussion is needed to explain why researching treatments should be a priority.
As the Kennedy Krieger source states, telling parents not to pursue any interventions without scientific support is impractical. Instead, the goal is encouraging families to avoid rash decisions that lead to children receiving a multitude of treatments. Emotional responses are road blocks to such a strategy, and Roylance and Cohn use their sources to explain why logic is sometimes discarded: vulnerability is high when parents first learn of an autism diagnosis. Since most parents will instinctively fight for their child’s success, and many lack an understanding of autism when they first hear of the disability, their susceptibility to doctors claiming to have a solution increases.
Geier’s treatment and recent suspension were subjects of recent stories, as two links appear as related articles to the investigative story filed by Roylance and Cohn. Using people like Geier as a springboard to a deeper story is a commonly-used tactic when resources and news editors allow reporters to execute the strategy. Treatments for autism are ripe subjects for story exploration because supposed techniques have exponentially increased. Most individual treatments without scientific evidence aren’t usually covered in mainstream news. Even if a treatment allegedly works on an autistic child, that technique can only represent a theory, not fact. The lack of scientific proof in alternative interventions can leave reporters in a precarious position with an autism community eager for awareness. However, Geier’s recent coverage opened the door to this realm of the autism spectrum while allowing Roylance and Cohn to filter the story and not create an impression of advocating alternative therapies themselves. Thanks to their reporting, we learn why Geier and other doctors can gain popular support: many parents of autistic children are rarely at the forefront of finding answers. Explaining why few parents involve their children in research studies is difficult, outside of simple impatience, but the low percentage of children in research studies should not be attributed to laziness.
Roylance and Cohn don’t suffer from laziness either. Readers unfamiliar with Geier are briefed on why he’s in the news, and they use parental perspectives to validate the analysis presented by Kennedy Krieger sources on the proliferation of autism treatments. Readers on top of autism coverage also gain a new perspective from the parental point of view. While emotional volatility is almost a guarantee for parents who learn of their child’s autism diagnosis for the first time, that mental state is transferred to research, regardless of what choice is made with alternative treatments. Roylance and Cohn could also open another door by highlighting the lack of involvement of autistic children in research of treatments. They didn’t specifically list how to enroll in research studies, but other reporters could piggyback on that subplot.
North Carolina’s no stranger for people to place themselves in the minds of autistics. As the adult population grows, so will the need for homes to accommodate 24-hour support and supervision for autistic adults whose behavioral challenges prohibit them from living on their own. WNC Group Homes, who owns five facilities in Asheville, have been testing their new Kenmore Street location since January, which replaced a Montford home that WNC described wasn’t built for their needs.
WNC teamed up with Tyner Construction, Co. and architect Andrew Willet to design a hybrid that could withstand pressure but not give off a sterile, cold feeling. The walls were created with high-impact drywall, a material often used in hospitals and detention facilities, but can also hold up against sudden emotional outbursts from its residents who may be unable to express their emotions in a more subtle way. The counters were constructed with extra-durable granite, and the trim is stained wood, which doesn’t chip as easily as standard painted moldings.
Not that visitors would notice right away. The walls are painted beige and the home is an open-floor plan, filled with light and lined nearly floor to ceiling with windows. Even the residents live out the home’s hybrid model, who all participate in sports and arts programming and hold jobs with various employers.
Casey Blake, who wrote the story, may have been inspired by Autism Awareness Month as the article’s web page includes a notice about WNC Group Homes and a link to the Autism Society of North Carolina’s website. Had this story been published in another time, the timing would have been more questionable since the story occurred long after the group home opened (stories on new facilities are generally released near or soon after their opening date). Still, Blake’s profile of the facility may highlight the future of caring for autistic adults as the public wonders what their future holds once their youth services end.
Blake offers one possibility by sticking with a hybrid theme for both the home and its residents. As with any other group home, the design incorporates the challenges of its residents, which are sensory sensitivity, accessibility and emotional outbursts in this case. While the aesthetic incorporation was the core of the story, she could have stopped reporting about the residents after explaining how the home could adapt to them. Instead, she continues her interview to reveal how the Kenmore residents are contributing to society, even if the rest of the public would take those contributions for granted.
Caretakers who clients include autistic people stand to gain the most from Blake’s story, by either following the WNC Group Home model for their Kenmore location (reaction has been overwhelmingly positive) or contacting their local reporters to highlight a similar hybrid home. Autism coverage of old often painted grim pictures of autistic adults whose symptoms were too severe to completely integrate with the mainstream. Blake doesn’t play “happy-go-lucky” with her story, but she does communicate that even the most severely impaired individuals who require special needs can enjoy some of the comforts their unimpaired peers almost expect.
The start to the 2011 calendar year was rocky for Andrew Wakefield, whose study was declared false by British journalist Brian Deer, who published several stories in the British Medical Journal highlighting Wakefield’s alleged false claims and unethical practices. Deer compared Wakefield, who lost his medical license after his study linking M.M.R. vaccines to autism was retracted last year from the medical journal Lancet, to a religious leader who occasionally uses the smoke and mirrors technique to goose the faith of his followers.
Deer’s investigation was one of many facets spilled out in an article by Susan Dominus for The New York Times Magazine, a longhand form of the country’s most recognizable newspaper. As with any form of magazine writing, the stories take on the form of novels and are more descriptive, too descriptive for me to summarize in shorthand form. That’s no reason to turn away though, as Dominus provides an insight on Wakefield no American reporter has offered before. Through her journey interviewing and shadowing Wakefield, we learn that Wakefield himself didn’t claim proof that M.M.R. vaccines were causing autism, but that didn’t stop his concerns from spreading worldwide the same way viruses spread through the body until its defense mechanisms can suppress it. If recent media coverage is any indication, Wakefield became one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, receiving blame for starting a panic that led to the resurgence of diseases long squashed by vaccinations.
Despite the wave of damning evidence which has led him to close himself professionally, he still draws followers, as 250 attended a discussion he conducted regarding his work. His supporters view him a hero when nearly everyone else paints him as a villain. Wakefield himself believes public health officials and pharmaceutical companies pay bloggers to post vicious material about him. Throughout the story, Dominus compliments Wakefield’s persuasive skills, even when the audience knows better. Wakefield continues to fight and promote his theory, with Dominus adding that the more he has sacrificed (he resigned from London’s Royal Free Hospital following his publicized concerns and now lives in Austin, Texas), the more he must believe in his theory, or all efforts will be rendered useless. Ironically, medical experts suggest aggressive studying of the M.M.R. vaccine following Wakefield’s 1998 media splash means the vaccine is one factor than can be ruled out in a disability still shrouded by mystery.
Dominus assures the readers that she isn’t necessarily siding in Wakefield’s camp, but she does give him an opportunity to present his case as other reporters who interview Wakefield quickly write him off as a discredited liar. By not falling into the dramatic trap that can detract storytelling from other outlets, readers of this story see why Wakefield continues his battle for reputation with his supporters waiting in the wings to back him up. We even learn a few personal anecdotes about his life before gaining his notorious status in Great Britain and most of the United States.
In order to obtain the behaviors, characteristics and traits Dominus lists regarding Wakefield, interviewing goes well beyond the simple press conference or brief one-on-one interview. Traveling with the source and immersing in the source’s comfort zone is common, and more relationship skills are needed to ensure you get the story requested in your assignment. In the case of Wakefield, encountering Dominus and her approach may have been more comforting since she offered a value other reporters decided to box away, even though she was no less neutral than shorthand writers covering the Wakefield saga. Ultimately, Dominus reveals the basis of Wakefield’s support comes from parents seeking answers who credit him or his associates for trying a possible solution, even if the strategy is cautioned by others (including casein and gluten-free diets, a media craze for a short time).
Magazine-style writing allows writers like Dominus to include more details and examine many subtopics of a story that traditional news articles can’t provide because of space or time constraints. Her observations may not remove Wakefield’s “villainous figure” in the eyes of the medical community, but just as the Marvel Comics movies emphasize human elements within their villains, Dominus’ story leaves Wakefield less clear-cut than previous mainstream glimpses portrayed him.
A new study published in the May issue of Epilepsia shines more light on the link between autism and epilepsy. The findings were picked up by multiple media outlets, including WebMD and U.S. News and World Report, where health reporter Jenifer Goodwin once again broke down the results. Researchers who looked at records of 127 patients aged 3 to 49 who were autistic and had at least one seizure over a 20-year period at the NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center in New York City. They found 34 percent of those patients had treatment-resistant epilepsy, meaning seizures continued despite taking medication. 28 percent were seizure-free after treatment and the remaining 38 percent could not be categorized because there wasn’t enough information to determine if their seizures were treatment-resistant or not. The average age of the first seizure in treatment-resistant epileptics was also significantly younger than those whose seizures were treatable (6 for TRE patients versus 11 for patients without TRE). Autistic TRE patients were also more likely to suffer impairments from autism spectrum disorder, as 54 percent of TRE patients had motor skills delays versus 35 percent for those with treatable epilepsy. Autistics with TRE were also more likely to experience developmental regression, which is sometimes noted among parents or other observers following their autistic children. The study’s author, Dr. Orrin Devinsky of the NYU Langone School of Medicine and director of the NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, suggested autistic children may need screening for epilepsy in order to learn more about the connection between the two conditions.
Goodwin has been busy making sense out of study numbers the last couple days. Unlike her last story about a survey of parents on vaccinations and their trust with different sources, Goodwin uses more figures in the autism/epilepsy study to highlight patterns suggesting epilepsy may be more common and severe when it targets autistic people. For those of you wondering why the study sample is small, recall that autism itself is still statistically rare and some people who may be on the spectrum may not have an official diagnosis. Likewise, the number of epileptics in the world is less than one percent, meaning the statistical odds of encountering an autistic with epilepsy are slim. The results of Devinsky’s study will likely spur more investigations on the link between epilepsy and autism if none weren’t already underway, paving the way for more insights on autism and epilepsy or perhaps presenting other information that may not agree with the study Goodwin reports about.
Remember the inverted pyramid I’ve been talking about for the last few posts? It’s hard to miss in this story, with the first piece of data highlighting the percentage of autistics with TRE, then going into other data relating to autism spectrum disorder, then tying the study with the Journal of Child Neurology publication suggesting epilepsy is more prevalent with autistics than previously thought. She does grab a few quotes from Devinsky, the study’s author, but most of the story spells out the study results. That technique is common with stories on studies as reporters follow their deadlines and, depending on the location or mission plan of the news organization involved, finding the human interest source is hard to find with the low odds of a person diagnosed with both autism and epilepsy.
I’m not an epileptic, but I have read about autistic children and adults suffering from seizures in my observation of autism articles and videos. Neither autism or epilepsy may be curable, and the study only begins to excavate a relatively unexplored area of the autism spectrum. With autistics already facing prospects of sensory overload on a daily basis, making the leap to seizures isn’t a stretch. Seeing more stories linking autism and epilepsy should be expected in future media coverage, but knowing when more reports will file in will be a harder task.
Traffic to The Autistic Journalist has skyrocketed once more after I returned from my three-month hiatus, and thanks to your support and the constant stream of articles I find, you are currently reading my 100th post since I activated the site in January 2009. The journey of archiving and analyzing how journalists report on the autism spectrum has allowed me to examine autism and reference what I’m discussing instead of simply going off my own observations. Since my first post, this site has recorded more than 12,000 visits and two syndications with Autisable and Disability Resource Exchange. I’m grateful for this outreach so far, but I doubt they will be the only ways of spreading my message.
Speaking of messages, two surveys whose results were published in the May issue of Pediatrics and picked up by U.S. News and World Report found that 93 percent of parents who participated had or were going to get all recommended vaccines for their children, while 76 percent said they trusted their doctors a lot. However, 24 percent of respondents said they placed trust in what celebrities say about vaccinations, which segued to autism activist Jenny McCarthy, who is known among the autism community for her opposition to vaccinations despite numerous studies refuting a link and the official retraction of the study that initiated the controversy (some of those stories are featured on this very site).
Dr. Gary Freed, one study author who is also the director of the child health evaluation and research unit at the University of Michigan, cautioned giving too much credit to celebrities who may not share the same background as researchers do. Freed was quoted saying there is a danger in the media of putting up celebrities as experts for any topic they have an opinion on, even though they have no expertise in immunizations or infectious diseases.
The second survey highlights a second obstacle that was explored by PBS’ Frontline documentary on vaccinations last year. 22 percent of those respondents said they were concerned about their child receiving too many vaccinations and the potential for damage to a child’s immune system (some vaccines, including flu shots, will use dead cells of the virus for the body’s immune system to absorb, allowing cells to fight off active versions of those viruses). Freed said that even if parents feel uneasy about their child getting poked often and early, that shouldn’t dissuade the notion of staying on schedule with vaccinations since many diseases they protect can be lethal for children and cause outbreaks for everyone else; Minnesota has been fighting a measles outbreak in recent weeks.
Jenifer Goodwin, the reporter who published the U.S. News study, faced a difficult proposition by covering two studies based on survey questions. One can be tricky enough for the audience to consume, as many stories that report poll figures will throw out a lot of statistics. Goodwin found an effective way to include both by finding one of the study authors and a second researcher who specializes in pediatric care for infectious diseases to spell out what the numbers mean. Not all writers do this when they recap poll numbers. Goodwin used her lead to highlight the biggest finding from the surveys, the overwhelming majority of parents who will follow the recommended vaccination schedule for their children, and quickly tied that to the ongoing controversy of the vaccine-autism link.
Some readers will read the first few paragraphs and then skim through the rest of the story, which is why print writers often employ the strategy Goodwin executes in her piece: the inverted pyramid. The inverted pyramid promotes placing the most important details of a story first, then include relevant but less necessary data in later paragraphs. While the web and various forms of blogging means writers don’t have to be as rigid with the format, the inverted pyramid remains a common form of print journalism and won’t stop being taught in workshops and classes that teach the craft.
Regarding the surveys, my biggest curiosity was the story reporting women and Hispanics being more likely to trust celebrities of the 24 percent that said they trusted them for vaccine information. Women cover just over half of the population and will have many backgrounds in their family lineage, while Hispanics are a growing segment of the American population that doesn’t rule out men believing what celebrities have to say. To gauge why the two responded the way they did would require a psychological expertise I don’t have, but we do see women more often for autism stories than men when it comes to the personal experience. Even the article from my last post on Holly Robinson-Peete spent the entire duration on her efforts, even though she and her husband are both involved in autism awareness. I’ve heard anecdotal suggestions that women are more enticing for autism stories because of their increased likelihood to display more volatility with emotional output, while men continue to live with the assumption they must be “tough guys.” Nothing is linear, of course, and families, researches, and other caretakers familiar with autism are well aware that support isn’t limited to the female gender.
There is potential for a follow-up story with the Hispanic community and autism (which would require a more complete perspective than their belief in celebrities), but I doubt the same regarding women, since that would leave many stations and papers in a state of self-critical research, and they’re not keen to highlighting trends they either caused or promoted that may not be beneficial for journalism itself.
Goodwin’s ability to guide us through two polls and not overwhelm us with numbers allows readers to feed off its notes, and also continues to suggest that the public is either growing tired of the vaccine-autism debate when evidence is clearly one-sided, taking more initiative to learn about all facets of autism, or both. Autism may not exist without a controversy for several years, but signs suggest the most visible issue in the last five years is slowly fading.
A Columbia University study discovered something that might make “Octomom” or other parents eager to have several kids pause for a moment: Children conceived less than 12 months after an older sibling is born are three times more likely to develop an autism diagnosis. According to the study, which documented 662,730 second-born California children from 1992 to 2002, the multiplied risk doesn’t subside until at least 23 months have passed. While no data was found suggesting an explanation for the statistical findings, medical experts assert that the risk of actually developing the disability is still low. The study was conducted because authors noticed previous research revealing an association between short intervals and other brain problems, including schizophrenia.
Because the study focused on finding a link and not the factors increasing a child’s likelihood of developing autism, the only speculation offered was nutritional deficiencies that appear in the years immediately following the birth of a child. While this offers little insight about the research, the timing is notable considering my post two days ago when WCCO mentioned the pause parents are having about vaccinating their children. When factoring the overall risk of developing autism, the percentage is low, with current estimates around 1%. However, most journalists and editors will gloss over that specific number in favor of flashy, attention-getting figures. In fact, it’s a pattern you’ll see on most reports about studies; the percentage difference is listed, usually in multiples (twice, three times, four times a likely, etc.), but the overall percentage is never calculated.
The lack of statistical detail often irks me when I read or watch stories on studies because reporters rarely put new findings into perspective. No reference point is often an ingredient in driving the news audience to a state of paranoia, because the audience is more likely to ignore the 1% chance of a child developing autism and see a flashing LED sign about the three-fold increase for children conceived less than a year after their first-born.
To be fair, Linda Carroll, who published MSNBC’s version of the story, does acknowledge the potential of scaring parents-to-be by including figures on the recommended intervals for multiple kids. She also quotes two medical professionals who advise people maintain their common sense about deciding to have a child. Such anecdotes are generally included in reports about studies that could carry significant implications to people’s health. Also stressed are the unanswered variables the study hasn’t accounted for, which only means further research lies ahead, leading to more questions as the search for factors that increase a risk of autism continues.
I’m the oldest of 4, and I’m sorry to say I’m the only screw-up of the bunch . While more questions than answers are revealed by this study, it symbolizes autism’s increasing saturation with Americans as several outlets picked up the study. This may also provide more evidence to organizations who recommend a more patient stance (including the World Health Organization) to ensure the best health for both mother and child. Ultimately, there will always be a risk of something when giving birth, but that hasn’t stopped most parents (and more shady figures) from “laying their eggs.” Journalists would be advised to hatch more stories about the Columbia University study for future use.