News Comment #2

August 30, 2016

As a college student, I don’t often find myself thinking about the elderly or issues in nursing homes, but a recent article in the New York Times has brought to my attention the issues between dementia patients and the use of feeding tubes and I wondered why more people don’t know about this seemingly prevalent issue in America’s nursing homes. According to recent studies, the use of feeding tubes with dementia patients has gone down dramatically in the past few years; from twelve percent in the early 2000s to less than six percent in the past few years. All of this new research has essentially brought to light the fact that feeding tubes can actually be detrimental to dementia patients, aggravating the eating and swallowing problems these patients develop as their condition worsens. Many dementia patients are also so far gone in terms of memory that the insertion of a tube can be frightening to them, potentially causing them to try and rip out the tube, injuring themselves in other ways. Many tubes can become blocked or moved, which requires hospitalization, or the tube encourages the patient to lie still more than usual, leading to bedsores or ulcers. Among all the obvious physical disadvantages, studies also mentioned the social interaction that comes with hand feeding that you don’t really get with tube feeding which can be very helpful to patients as they struggle to remember anything about their lives. With all of this new evidence however, there are still many nursing homes that don’t choose to provide the option of not having a feeding tube to the patients and their caregivers, and sometimes families request the feeding tube option, so it’s not clear whether or not going without a feeding tube will become the more popular or only option in nursing homes in the future.

This article started with a seemingly regular sentence, using an anecdote as a tool to bring the reader in to read more by making a simple statement that is vague but also semi specific enough to awaken the reader’s curiosity but not give the whole story away. From how the story is designed, it seems like the author was trying to cater to an audience of people who identify themselves as caregivers to dementia patients or just the general public who want general information on the health care system. The author heavily relies on support of eliminating feeding tubes from nursing home care, and has little evidence on the effectiveness of keeping these devices. Most information that was for feeding tubes staying in these care facilities was arranged towards the end after a long argument had been made for the elimination of these same devices. I think this story as a whole is very newsworthy as many people don’t consider the specifics of dementia patient care in nursing homes until one of their loved ones has this condition, so providing this information to the general public could help educate caregivers a little more before just believing the doctor is always right.

 

Jessi Johnson, a native of Sergeant Bluff, Iowa came to Morningside College to major in business and minor in journalism, but the decision was also based on family members that attended this school years before. She has one sister who is still in high school and is the proud owner of two frogs because of an allergy to cats as well as dogs. Johnson was involved in cheerleading in high school, a passion that transferred to her time in college. Besides cheerleading, she loves to watch TV and bake. Johnson hopes to take the things she learns in her four years at Morningside and own her own business someday.

The Myth of Objectivity

August 25, 2016

Objectivity is a word that is tossed around a lot when talking about writing and especially in the media. Those who aren’t involved in writing for the public don’t often have to think about being objective, or simply stating the facts, as their opinions are their own and others expect them to express how they feel about certain topics. This concept, however, should not typically apply to news reporters whose job descriptions are to report the news objectively. While in a perfect world this would remain true, this has not been the case in news media almost since its beginning. People use the news sources to show how they feel instead of presenting the facts of the situation and for good reason. Every human has a different reaction and to not express that is to cut off creative expression in a way. Objectivity applies to me specifically because if I want to structure a sound argument about a topic I have to take into consideration that the more biased I sound, the less likely people are to take me seriously because I haven’t shown them all the pros and cons of my position as well as the opposing side. I don’t believe it’s possible to create a “norm” for journalists or the public in general when they write about these topics that require impartiality, as I believe many journalists need some bias to feel like they’re staying true to themselves. Every story has several different angles, it’s up to the writer to capture the full story to the best of their abilities. The article did make a valid point when saying that Trump tests reporter’s ability to stay objective when he pushes the boundaries of what is considered normal and sane. The job of news media is to report the interesting, alarming, and important. When that leads to a potentially biased article, it may become the reporter’s job to be the bias just to put the thought that something could be wrong into people’s heads. Ultimately, in an ideal world, the media would strive for objectivity in all aspects and people would believe that the world is a place full of sunshine and rainbows, but the reality is the world can be a cold place and without some cynicism we lose the motivation to fix the world’s problems and become complacent.