BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
A TALE OF GROTESQUE HYPOCRISY.
According to a lengthy
report on the
Nation's website, Dr. David Hager, who as an adviser to the
Bush administration helped deep-six FDA support for the morning-after
pill, has been accused by his ex-wife of anally raping her over many
years, often initiating his approaches while she was in a narcoleptic
stupor.
The article, by Ayelish McGarvey,
is a disturbing look at the alleged hypocrisy of an evangelical
Christian. Hager, an OBGYN, has written six books with titles like
As Jesus Cared for Women, which McGarvey describes as
"self-help tomes that interweave syrupy Christian spirituality with
paternalistic advice on women's health and relationships."
The sexual-assault charges leveled
by Hager's ex-wife, Linda Carruth Davis, are pretty horrifying. And
they raise an interesting media-ethics issue: what does a mainstream
news organization do when explosive accusations like this are
reported by another media outlet?
The Washington Post's
solution today is to report
the policy news that's contained in McGarvey's article, but not the
sodomy. Both the Post's Marc Kaufman and the Nation
make much of a videotape of a talk given by Hager at Asbury College,
in Kentucky, last October. During that talk, Hager boasted of his
role, as a member of an FDA advisory board, in stopping a proposal to
make the Plan B morning-after birth-control pill easier to
obtain.
During the talk, Hager said, "I
argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information,
and he used it through this minority report to influence the
decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into
good." Faith-based science, indeed.
Now, the Post certainly knew
about the sexual-abuse allegations, because Kaufman's article
includes this: "The videotape of Hager's sermon was first obtained by
the magazine the Nation, which published a story about the doctor
today [Wednesday]." But that's as far as the Post is
willing to go.
The Post is following good
ethical standards. It is clear from the context that Kaufman himself
was able to watch the videotape. He also obtained comment from Hager
and others. The sex stuff is another matter - he would have
essentially had to re-report McGarvey's story, and there's no way
he could have done that in a matter of hours. So good on the
Post for not simply reporting the Nation's allegations
without double-checking them. (And if there is a critic's exemption,
let me invoke it right here.)
But now the mainstream media have a
decision to make. Will they follow up the Nation's reporting
by pursuing this tale of grotesque hypocrisy - hypocrisy that, if
fully pursued, could place Hager in some legal jeopardy? Or are they
going to take a pass on this?
The analogy to Bill Clinton's sex
life doesn't quite work. On the one hand, he was the president, which
made him a far bigger and more legitimate target than Hager. On the
other hand, as McGarvey notes, Clinton's dalliance with Monica
Lewinsky was legal and consensual; what Linda Davis alleges is
anything but.
It seems to me that when credible
allegations are made that a Bush adviser who helped kill an important
health initiative for women may have a history of sexual abuse
against his ex-wife, that's a story that ought to be fleshed out in
some detail.
Addendum: in 2002, Kathryn Jean
Lopez wrote a
piece for National Review
Online claiming that the left was piling on poor Dr. Hager because of
his religious views. It will be interesting to see whether Lopez
writes a follow-up.
NEW IN THIS WEEK'S
PHOENIX. The religious right (and a few liberals) already
have broadcasters on the run with their crusade
against indecency. Coming
up: cable, satellite, and - just possibly - the Internet. With a
legal
analysis by Harvey
Silverglate.
posted at 12:48 PM |
4 comments
|
link
4 Comments:
An interesting piece at the Nation, but am I alone in thinking a stronger editor might have suggested killing the whole paragraph of "this is nothing like the Clinton situation with Lewinsky"? It smacked of left field logic.
Another Republican pervert? Who f*cks people up the ass?? I'm so surprised!!!
Hopefully ANDREW SULLIVAN can lend his expertise on this issue.
Or maybe JAMES E. WEST.
Or maybe PHILIP GIORDANO.
Or maybe GEORGE ROCHE.
Or maybe EDISON MISLA ALDARONDO.
Or maybe defenders of STROM THURMOND have something to say?
How about JACK RYAN.
Or maybe HENRY HYDE or BOB LIVINGSTON.
Or maybe friends of the late MARTY GLICKMAN want to comment?
Or maybe HELEN CHENOWETH.
Or maybe JESSICA CULTER can tell us more about why Republican perverts are so damned anal?
Or maybe....
"The sex stuff is another matter - he would have essentially had to re-report McGarvey's story, and there's no way he could have done that in a matter of hours."
Oh please.
Look at the New York Times reporting on Clinton, Wen Ho Lee and Iraq's weapon's that were just made up.
I write for a trade magazine and I regularly have to re-report stories on short notice. It's not that hard.
This story isn't being covered because it is, indeed, okay if you're a goddamned piece of shit republican.
There is obviously no excuse for whatever sloppy reporting Newsweek may have committed, and the fact that 16 people have died in rioting because of the story obviously looms large.
The rioting was because of the Newsweek story? Puh-leeze... As Gen Myers (as well as common sense) points out, this unrest was fullblown without the two sentences in Newsweek.
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
