the informed citizen?
i saw an associated press article today entitled "if you're going to smoke, at least exercise." the sub-head of the article reads, "smokers can cut lung cancer risk with activity, but quitting is still the better choice." this started me thinking. and not actually about the study itself (which, by the way, found study participants -- older female smokers, in this case -- who were physically active had a 35 percent lower risk of getting lung cancer than those who were not), but about the nature of the article. i think it addresses a really relevant issue; one from which, i think many tend to shy. to use the example at hand, everyone knows there are lots of people who smoke cigarettes. everyone also knows that anyone who smokes compromises their health. now while that's all well and good, it seems to me that most people seem to think that is all that's remotely worth knowing. and there, i take issue. let us return to the first part of that statement: there are lots of people who smoke. now if that is true, shouldn't there be information available to those who do smoke about how best to take care of themselves in spite of the fact they smoke? the article included -- predictably -- a "disclaimer" about this research not being a go-ahead to smoke. but would anyone really think that any piece of information about smoking would make it safe to do it? of course not. the key here is that information was released that is relevant to the "whole story," to cohesiveness, to a comprehensive approach to information and access to information. isn't that what journalists are supposed to do? give information without suppression, alteration, or judgment? what happened to giving people facts with which they can do what they want, as an individual? what happened to that?
i was pleased to see that article. i like being presented with something i can interpret for myself. i like a little controversy. or at least some room for it. i like that one can tell from the way that article reads that it was somehow slightly "edgy" medical information, that some might take issue with a publication printing something that says, basically, if you do make that bad health decision, at least make this good one, instead of just pummeling the bad by virtue of some vague, societal instinct. while it states clearly that quitting smoking is clearly the best route, it is also not merely a judgment-ridden condemnation of the act. some people choose to smoke. that is their choice and no one else need agree or disagree. no doctor who participated in this research is saying, "you should start smoking and then exercise to offset cancer risks." the message is in the completely -- refreshingly -- down-to-earth headline, "if you smoke, at least exercise."
this brings to mind an issue we deal with daily at planned parenthood: sexual activity in teenagers and sex education at high schools. no doubt everyone is familiar with the "abstinence-only sex education" route. and i, for one, find it totally sensible to solely preach abstinence, since there are no kids in the united states engaging in sexual activity. right. of course there is no call for information about silly things like birth control. if only educators and politicians (why the politicians are involved in this is beyond me) could agree to offer young people the information to make informed decisions about their health instead of pushing an agenda of moral predetermined "morality." wake-up call: kids are having sex. let us help them to do it safely. again, no one is telling thirteen year-old lucy to become sexually active. but if she were to make that choice, shouldn't she at least have access to the means to protect herself? a no-brainer. no?
or a whole different level, not too long ago ifc released "this film is not yet rated." though i found the film far from perfect, i was appalled by an enlightening segment of split-screen shots designed to demonstrate the difference between graphic sexual scenes that apparently merit a "nc-17" rating and those that get merely an "r" rating instead. the difference? one side -- the "r" side -- showed heterosexual couples, one side -- the feared-by-all-filmmakers "nc-17" side -- homosexual couples. it reminded me of all the press some of the oscar-nominated films -- brokeback mountain, capote, transamerica -- got last year in conservative media for being morally reprehensible, for promoting homosexuality. indeed, hollywood apparently was trying to make american film-goers gay. and at its heart, this issue is the same as the abstinence-only education debate and an article about taking better care of yourself while still smoking cigarettes. the films were agenda-less. they were not some suggestion or dictation of how one should behave. why not let people see the movies, and decide for themselves if they are indeed so abhorrent? why the need for constant commentary and judgment and someone else's "context?"
last night i took a cab from the west village and i chatted with the cabbie on the ride home to park slope. he was a musician and a visual artist originally from baltimore. he talked about the artistic and creative scene in his hometown, painting it as very rugged and still quite raw, inspiring, individual. i made some generic comment inquiring how could one who lives in new york city -- the cultural capital of all this is anything -- could possibly want for any other "scene." and i was about to start my "actually, the issue is that we are all so spoiled in new york; we live here on our island of liberal openness and acceptance and truth and information and artistic freedom and nurturance etc. etc. etc." rant when he turned around and looked at me through the break in the plexiglas divider. "new york is not what it used to be," he said. "it's conservative now. it's changed. new york? it's become no york."
i do not agree with that assertion. i think there's much to be found and explored and interpreted here in new york. i feel i am provided for here, intellectually, "informatively," artistically, creatively, as an individual. but i won't deny that the conversation with the cabbie made me that much more enthusiastic to see that associated press article about exercising smokers, of all things. an objective, potentially controversial piece of informational journalism. what a novelty.
i was pleased to see that article. i like being presented with something i can interpret for myself. i like a little controversy. or at least some room for it. i like that one can tell from the way that article reads that it was somehow slightly "edgy" medical information, that some might take issue with a publication printing something that says, basically, if you do make that bad health decision, at least make this good one, instead of just pummeling the bad by virtue of some vague, societal instinct. while it states clearly that quitting smoking is clearly the best route, it is also not merely a judgment-ridden condemnation of the act. some people choose to smoke. that is their choice and no one else need agree or disagree. no doctor who participated in this research is saying, "you should start smoking and then exercise to offset cancer risks." the message is in the completely -- refreshingly -- down-to-earth headline, "if you smoke, at least exercise."
this brings to mind an issue we deal with daily at planned parenthood: sexual activity in teenagers and sex education at high schools. no doubt everyone is familiar with the "abstinence-only sex education" route. and i, for one, find it totally sensible to solely preach abstinence, since there are no kids in the united states engaging in sexual activity. right. of course there is no call for information about silly things like birth control. if only educators and politicians (why the politicians are involved in this is beyond me) could agree to offer young people the information to make informed decisions about their health instead of pushing an agenda of moral predetermined "morality." wake-up call: kids are having sex. let us help them to do it safely. again, no one is telling thirteen year-old lucy to become sexually active. but if she were to make that choice, shouldn't she at least have access to the means to protect herself? a no-brainer. no?
or a whole different level, not too long ago ifc released "this film is not yet rated." though i found the film far from perfect, i was appalled by an enlightening segment of split-screen shots designed to demonstrate the difference between graphic sexual scenes that apparently merit a "nc-17" rating and those that get merely an "r" rating instead. the difference? one side -- the "r" side -- showed heterosexual couples, one side -- the feared-by-all-filmmakers "nc-17" side -- homosexual couples. it reminded me of all the press some of the oscar-nominated films -- brokeback mountain, capote, transamerica -- got last year in conservative media for being morally reprehensible, for promoting homosexuality. indeed, hollywood apparently was trying to make american film-goers gay. and at its heart, this issue is the same as the abstinence-only education debate and an article about taking better care of yourself while still smoking cigarettes. the films were agenda-less. they were not some suggestion or dictation of how one should behave. why not let people see the movies, and decide for themselves if they are indeed so abhorrent? why the need for constant commentary and judgment and someone else's "context?"
last night i took a cab from the west village and i chatted with the cabbie on the ride home to park slope. he was a musician and a visual artist originally from baltimore. he talked about the artistic and creative scene in his hometown, painting it as very rugged and still quite raw, inspiring, individual. i made some generic comment inquiring how could one who lives in new york city -- the cultural capital of all this is anything -- could possibly want for any other "scene." and i was about to start my "actually, the issue is that we are all so spoiled in new york; we live here on our island of liberal openness and acceptance and truth and information and artistic freedom and nurturance etc. etc. etc." rant when he turned around and looked at me through the break in the plexiglas divider. "new york is not what it used to be," he said. "it's conservative now. it's changed. new york? it's become no york."
i do not agree with that assertion. i think there's much to be found and explored and interpreted here in new york. i feel i am provided for here, intellectually, "informatively," artistically, creatively, as an individual. but i won't deny that the conversation with the cabbie made me that much more enthusiastic to see that associated press article about exercising smokers, of all things. an objective, potentially controversial piece of informational journalism. what a novelty.
posted by blythe at 5:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home