One more time, into the whirlpool of questions about how newspapers should handle stories that raise moral questions, yet questions that are — for many readers — may or may not not religious.
In other words:
rob reynolds says:
March 13, 2008, at 8:35 pm …
I couldn’t care less about the whole sin angle. This country needs to move beyond its Puritan roots.
I was going to write about the recent New York Times STD story, but, ironically, the Eliot Spitzer story got in the way. Another GetReligionista or two will weigh in on other reports on the same topic. They are all haunted, to one degree or another.
The basic facts of the story by Lawrence K. Altman are pretty blunt. Here’s what grabbed the headlines:
The first national study of four common sexually transmitted diseases among girls and young women has found that one in four are infected with at least one of the diseases, federal health officials reported Tuesday.
Nearly half the African-Americans in the study of teenagers ages 14 to 19 were infected with at least one of the diseases monitored in the study — human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis, a common parasite. The 50 percent figure compared with 20 percent of white teenagers, health officials and researchers said at a news conference at a scientific meeting in Chicago.
The religion angle shows up quickly, primarily as the political forces are work are brought into play. The various straw people come out to dance — at least on one side of a big question.
The president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, said the new findings “emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education.”
“The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, “and teenage girls are paying the real price.”
Now, before you click the “comment” link, let me make a comment or two of my own to define what we need to discuss about this story.
The word “abstinence” is, of course, a reference to those who advocate a traditional, religious view of sexual morality. It is a buzz word that means “Religious Right.” Thus, the story contains an important — and totally justified — voice on one side of a very hot moral and religious issue. In its own way, the newspaper introduced the “sin” question.
Where is the other side of this argument? Why quote only one side? That’s the journalistic question that we will discuss.
It is also interesting to note that the “abstinence” issue is the only one raised, as the Times attempts to raise a question that demands — who, what, when, where, why and how — to be raised. Why is all of this happening? Are African-American teen-agers in big cities served by public schools being bombarded with two or three times more “abstinence” education than their white counterparts? Have other forms of sexual education vanished? Are there NO other cultural forces at work in this story? None?
These are questions that need to be raised in a journalistic context. There is no way to avoid the crucial question: “Why are these numbers as high as they are?”
To the newspaper’s credit, it did end the story with at least one reference to the complex nature of the trends being discussed. It seems that there are questions being raised that cannot simply be answered with more condoms.
The Food and Drug Administration has said in a report that latex condoms are “highly effective” at preventing infection by chlamydia, trichomoniasis, H.I.V., gonorrhea and hepatitis B. The agency noted that condoms seemed less effective against genital herpes and syphilis. Protection against human papillomavirus “is partial at best,” the report said.
So how are we coming to comment on the religion elements of this story?
You can comment all you want about the journalistic question that I have raised. If you want to veer away from that and get into the who issue of sex education and religion, then I urge you to do this — simply offer our readers a URL for another site at which they can read material that you want them to read. Otherwise, I will be spiking as many flame-throwing comments as I can.
But, I will take the liberty to point you to the work of Rod “friend of this blog” Dreher, whose reaction to the story was the same as my own. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I found it hard to read this story and not think of the classic column that Peggy Noonan wrote after the Columbine High School massacre:
Your child is an intelligent little fish. He swims in deep water. Waves of sound and sight, of thought and fact, come invisibly through that water, like radar; they go through him again and again, from this direction and that. The sound from the television is a wave, and the sound from the radio; the headlines on the newsstand, on the magazines, on the ad on the bus as it whizzes by — all are waves. The fish — your child — is bombarded and barely knows it. But the waves contain words like this, which I’ll limit to only one source, the news:
… was found strangled and is believed to have been sexually molested … had her breast implants removed … took the stand to say the killer was smiling the day the show aired … said the procedure is, in fact, legal infanticide … is thought to be connected to earlier sexual activity among teens … court battle over who owns the frozen sperm … contains songs that call for dominating and even imprisoning women … died of lethal injection … had threatened to kill her children … said that he turned and said, “You better put some ice on that” … had asked Kevorkian for help in killing himself … protested the game, which they said has gone beyond violence to sadism … showed no remorse … which is about a wager over whether he could sleep with another student … which is about her attempts to balance three lovers and a watchful fiance …
This is the ocean in which our children swim. This is the sound of our culture.
 | Posted at 11:30 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (19) |
March 14, 2008, at 12:06 pm
By chance I picked up The Brothers Karamozov for a Lenten regimen that required both my wife and myself — empty nesters — to turn off the television.
Although I’m just entering “The Russian Monk” pages, the struggle with sin that I am assured will play out in this story is unavoidable.
Yet sin is ignored and-or euphemized in today’s world — so much so that we have stories like this one on STDs. I’ll be looking for comments from others and whether they will admit to the many times they don’t take the time to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, because they’re unsure of what is right.
March 14, 2008, at 12:10 pm
You’ve touched on big issues and ones that are not covered in stories like this. It’s a failing of journalism today, that we get facts and a surface look at issues, but no in depth discussion. Maybe that’s too much to ask but I think it should be asked. Some questions that should be explored are: What are the roles of parents, churches(etc) and schools in developing moral behavior? How should schools function based on differing morals of parents? Should we be teaching only ideal behavior (abstinence) or teach based on what we know will happen to too many (the “fish” comments)? That also gets into the HPV vaccination debate which includes the issue of if someone is a virgin at marriage but the spouse is not, what is the risk of getting HPV in such a situation and thus transcends the abstinence debate.
Even with the story there are questions: How reliable are the statistics? Does sex education which includes birth control also cover the fact that condoms don’t protect well against all STDs? Does the religious background of the family show up in different STD outcomes?
March 14, 2008, at 1:10 pm
A young man who attended my Bible study in jail got a job a few years ago, after he got out, funded with public money, which assigned him to hand out free condoms in the ghetto.
I’m not even sure what the right questions are anymore, nor whom to ask.
~eric.
March 14, 2008, at 1:16 pm
In the context in which it was used, it referred to programs promoted by the federal government, a secular (so far) institution. The comment was made by Planned Parenthood, another secular institution. A balancing quote should have been sought from a member of Congress or the Administration who supports or administers abstinence-only programs.
The reporter is free to contact someone from the “Religious Right” for a comment, but would then be obligated to seek a balancing comment from the religious left, perhaps from the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, who have created and used a factually comprehensive sex education program as part of their religious education offerings.
March 14, 2008, at 1:24 pm
I’ve worked with reporters a lot over the years, and usually on controversial issues. What I’ve learned is that reporters rarely question statements from sources — if the reporter agrees personally with the source. So they get a comment like “the studies say X,” and if the reporter agrees with the statement, he or she will rarely if ever ask, “What studies?” I once caught a National Public Readio reporter on that one — she had accepted a lie simply because the source prefaced it with “the studies say” and she happened to agree with the conclusion.
The comment from the Planned Parenthood official begs for questions, starting with, “Have you read the CDC study? What data in the study supports what you’re saying? Did the study specifically cite abstinence, or is that your conclusion, not the study’s?” Of course, given they reporters work these days, it would be a surprise to find out that the reporter had read the study, and wasn’t just working from the CDC press release.
March 14, 2008, at 1:39 pm
Diogenes, over at Catholic World News, asks a very good question about the Planned Parenthood quote, “OK, now I’m stumped. Can you please help me out? What is the logic behind her argument?” The statement is illogical on its face. Abstinence doesn’t cause STD’s, nor does teaching it. That this statement wasn’t challenged is a major failing of the reporting.
March 14, 2008, at 1:53 pm
The “other side” got the first word
Planned Parenthood then gets to respond with its critique of the government policy, which for the last 7 years has emphasized abstinence.
That’s balance. The government spokespeople explain government policy—albeit, not mentioning abstinence—and a government critic responds. To quote someone from, say, Concerned Women for America would have upset the balance of the story because it would be two advocate voices for government policy and only one critic.
March 14, 2008, at 1:57 pm
Thank you for addressing this question. I, too, was wondering yet again: where is the other side to this argument? Why only one quote belittling absitnence?
I told my daughter a few years ago that if condoms worked as well as they said they did in preventing diseases, then Planned Parenthood would be highly recommending them for birth control. I told her, if you go to a Planned Parenthood center, they are NOT going to recommend a condom for birth control.
Of course I am recommending marriage as a form of birth control, so that children will be born into the controlled environment of family.
March 14, 2008, at 2:24 pm
Have you been to a Planned Parenthood center, because of course they recommend condoms for birth control. Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s work. Most of their work is providing health service, dispensing birth control, etc.
March 14, 2008, at 3:58 pm
Actually I thought they would recommend the birth control pill first. But, no, it’s been years since I’ve been anywhere near an actual Planned Parenthood Center.
March 14, 2008, at 4:08 pm
“Why is all of this happening? Are African-American teen-agers in big cities served by public schools being bombarded with two or three times more “abstinence†education than their white counterparts? Have other forms of sexual education vanished?â€
Wonderful questions! Since my children are taught in school that ‘it’s safest not to have sex, but if you are going to (as we know you will), here’s how to do it’ - I’m wondering just how many of our schools, or what % fo the population, is being locked in a closet and told there is no protection, only abstinence. It would be nice to see some actual stats, as well as some POV from non-sex education advocates and beneficiaries (my opinion is we are reaping the whirlwind from the sexual wind we sowed).
March 14, 2008, at 4:52 pm
Many of my friends have visited Planned Parenthood. For STDs, a condom would be recommended and given. For *birth control*, a method such as the pill, the patch or the ring would be recommended.
I’d never thought about Margaret’s point that if condoms worked as well as some purport, they would be good enough for birth control, too.
The Nemours Foundation runs a large pediatric health site that has a chart that shows the effectiveness of various methods of birth control.
Consistent abstinence, as logic dictates, is the most effective at avoiding pregnancy and disease.
Fifteen out of 100 couples using the male condom for birth control will get pregnant in a given year, rating it moderately effective as a birth control method. The same reasons it can’t prevent pregnancy completely (user error, production error) would indicate some similar failure rate for disease reduction.
But I guess it would be asking too much to include such information in a story about disease prevention …
March 14, 2008, at 5:05 pm
Where did they get that 15 in 100 figure?
Abstinence is on paper effective, it’s just not going to happen and is rather unrealistic. It seems unhelpful to me to talk about it as a means of avoiding pregnancy\STDs in the same way as we would contraception.
March 14, 2008, at 5:30 pm
Stoo writes:
I draw our attention to Peggy Noonan’s words above
March 14, 2008, at 5:35 pm
Let’s be clear here; there are two “Dave’s” posting to this board: the one with kids in school (not me), and the one who referred to the religious left (that’s me).
Glynn Young wrote:
As I understand it, PPF looks at year-to-year studies from the CDC and the like on matters such as this, and finds no sign of reduction in STDs or unintended pregnancies that can be attributed to federally sponsored abstinence-only programs.
But it’s certainly legitimate to ask them how they come to their conclusions. They’re not oracles.
March 14, 2008, at 10:01 pm
I believe you have come upon another instance of “When journalism becomes activism.”
Perhaps you guys could keep a running “activism” tally of articles you critique. I know you want to think the best of your colleagues in your field, but I would love to see a score card of activist vs. journalist articles.
I do like your blog.
March 14, 2008, at 11:15 pm
This story truly does lack both balance and information. The only quotes come from CDC and Planned Parenthood. There is no link to the study itself.
Cecile Richards is permitted to declare, “The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure and teenage girls are paying the real price,” with no explanation or rebuttal. CDC does not, to my knowledge, promote abstinence only sex education. They certainly don’t in this story. Planned Parenthood does discourage abstinence on its Teenwire site(one of those waves in the analogy). They do distribute condoms, which quotes elsewhere state are not effective at preventing infection. This quote needs to be better qualified or left out. It has no place in the story as it now stands.
Dr. Forhan is quoted as saying; that the study showed “how fast the S.T.D. prevalence appears.” The story states that this is the first time such a study was done. There is no baseline on which to hang this statement. Clarification please.
This story, rehashed, is creating a panic that it does not show supporting evidence for. Perhaps it is justified, perhaps not. How can we tell? Another soundwave in the water.
Jeff
March 15, 2008, at 12:12 pm
The unanswered question in the article for me centers on the race of the young women. Why are black girls more likely to have an STD than white girls? Is this a “ghetto” factor and if so, how does poverty play into it? I think this is the key to the article and would be interested in a follow up along those lines.
March 16, 2008, at 2:21 pm
Molly wrote:
I’ve seen considerable journalism along these lines. Some of the factors are a lack of male role models in young women’s homes, a culture that regards a girl as an adult as soon as she has a child, older men cynically on the make for younger women — and, yes, discussed in a context of poverty: a lack of resources for the girls and a lack of work to engage the men.
It just wasn’t discussed in a context of STD rates.