Anyway, back to Frontline. One thing I went into my viewing with was a clear awareness of my biases. I knew that I would not be able to watch and listen to Jenny McCarthy simultaneously, and as she was speaking, I couldn't keep from tweeting that she seems to have gotten her degree from Google Elementary, rather than Google U. I've read some of Ms. McCarthy's words, but hadn't previously had the pleasure of hearing them spoken complete with tone, gesture, and facial expression. Of that last, I only caught a few glimpses.
Tone matters, doesn't it? As any actor knows, the same words can be said in a million different ways with a million little subtle changes that convey a nuance of frustration, a frisson of lost patience, a soupcon of underlying indifference. And while not one single interview on the Frontline episode really surprised me, what really rang out for me were the tones of the different voices.
Jenny McCarthy was pugnacious, defensive, snarky. In terms of offering evidence, she did what I've heard of her doing before: Her evidence for anything she has to say is her son. As I've already blogged, I found Jennifer Margulis' tone to be unexpectedly dismissive and jocular about something so serious as the death of children from vaccine-preventable diseases. J.B. Handley also was pugnacious and defensive, with a blustery, windy tone that I found off-putting. Dr. Cynthia Cristofani, who led the EMS courses on how to recognized distressed infants, came across in tones of deep compassion, driven by her experience and heartfelt concern. Art Caplan, whom I've often read but never heard speak, spoke in tones of honesty and urgency that drew from me respect. I liked him a lot. Dr. Anthony Fauci's voice also resonated with a quiet, measured sincerity.
It's probably a personal aesthetic or something, or maybe a perception of wanting a salve to soothe my own reflected failings (pugnacious and snarky much?), but I harkened so much more to the compassionate, quiet, sincere, and thoughtful voices of that Frontline presentation. They captured my ear and made me listen. When the tone was angry or dismissive or blustery, they lost me. I was more beholden to these sounds than I was to what they were saying, in part because I've heard it all before. Perhaps for me (maybe for others), whom we hear, whom we listen to, is just as much a matter of aesthetics as it is a matter of what we know and understand or want to hear.
You'll notice that I have yet to mention Dr. Offit. I watched his interview. His tone aside, one thing that stood out for me was the fact that he did not answer the question about whether or not he'd made money off of the rotavirus vaccine. The answer is obvious, of course. He did. Why not just say, "Yes," and then move on to his valid point that the vaccine has saved untold numbers of lives and huge costs associated with rotavirus-related health care? His tone wasn't so important there as was the absence of an answer.
I most enjoyed the way Frontline unfolded the scientific story behind this controversy, dating it from Wakefield's retracted MMR study and carrying it through to the multiple epidemiological studies showing no link of any kind between autism and vaccines. Speaking of Wakefield, I'd never heard his voice before, and his tone and presentation were what I'd envisioned: rather slickly martyr-like, a voice that immediately engendered a profound distrust in what I heard him say. How's that for scientific? Speaking of which, I appreciated the quiet tone of the Danish scientist and even the pleasant voiceovers from the Frontline folk.
So, ultimately, the Frontline viewing--and listening--wasn't educational for me in terms of its content. God knows, if you've wandered around enough out here in the Webosphere, imbibing what this side has to say, what that side has to say, you could have scripted out those Frontline interviews with a fair amount of accuracy. But could you have gotten the tone? What I did take away from it was a tiny bit of insight into myself: I like quiet, measured, thoughtful, sincere, compassionate tones. They soothe my ear like the music of the elves. Constantly angry, ranting people put me off, and I'm far less likely to truly listen to what they have to say. How much of our "stand" on anything has to do with these seemingly peripheral elements of aesthetics and intuition trumping all manner of hard evidence?
It's questions like that that drive Spocks like me insane.
6 comments:
cool perspective--noting the tone of the participants.
I've always liked the narrator for frontline.
"Spocks like me insane."
Yup, me, too. Dammit, everything should be done _right_!
(I am, of course, incapable of doing everything right, which is one of the many reasons why I am such a grump, and why I go to church.)
I fall somewhere in the middle of the vaccine battles. IMO there has been no research done to check on the long term safety of vaccines. YES, they prevent illnesses that would otherwise kill... but what do they do to our genetic make up. Also, I'm not convinced we are healthier because of them... we live longer... but with the help of modern day meds not b/c we are actually healthy.
Had I known then, what I know now and about my eldest's nasty reactions to the MMR vaccine... yes, I would have postponed them out of babyhood. Would I have refused them entirely - no. Also in the US you have more vaccines than we do and I'm not convinced that's a good thing.
We opted out of the chicken pox and pneumonia vaccines but b/c of their age we have to pay for them. And if one goes with the fact that vaccines can't cause illness than chicken pox couldn't cause little boys stomach bug that in the end had him home 2 weeks instead of 1 with the pox.
We opted to pay for the meningitus one... especially living 30min from a major medical center and 1hr from a children's hospital. I may have concerns... but that doesn't make me a fool.
Polio is a clean water disease. Which I didn't know until I read Arthur Allen's Vaccine book.
We've never had a flu shot. My children got H1N1 at the beginning early last May... long before the vax was even out. Little boy was home 2.5days and eldest .5, ironically we had a Dr's appt for something else the afternoon they were both home, they were checked over and sent home - medless. It was never offered to us, and anytime I have asked about flu vax's I have been told our family is healthy - no asthma etc, I am willing to keep them out of school and Dh can stay home (farm) so there is no need for one. That's 2 Ped's and one Fam. Dr that have told us so.
As things change, new vax's are offered, we age, we may change how we opt in or out of vax's. But we won't be guilted either way.
I also finally watched the Frontline piece on Vaccines. I totally agree with you about 'tone' and what a powerful influence it has. My comment here is related more to the overall, shall we say, 'aesthetic tone' of the piece, and some aspects thereof. I will say that overall I found the piece in its entirety to be, well...boring, interjected with some sudden blips and WTF's!
First off, (and I mean first off) what was with that opening scene? What the heck kind of tone was that setting? Is it really just that I'm from Vancouver, B.C. and children are birthed differently here? Like, generally not flat on our backs having c-sections with birthed baby being almost immediately abducted. That woman in the first scene had the most medically oriented birth I have ever witnessed on a show that wasn't documenting c-sections specifically, right down to baby being suctioned and manhandled by nurses before mom even gets to hold her. Then, cut to shot of baby immediately being rolled away down a hall to where? Far far away from mom is what it felt like to me. And yet the scene was used as the oft- used in film (and usually somewhat generic), introductory 'woman giving birth to precious baby' scene. I could barely collect my jaw off the floor. (As an aside, I trolled through hundreds of comments and could find not one person who seemed to notice this bizarre scene as unusual).
This really set the tone for me. I thought I better brace myself for the oncoming waves of pro-medical community rhetoric, which was fine, because hey, I like science and, as the mind-boggling first scene seemed to promise, at least it wouldn't be boring.
Sigh. I was wrong. Mostly, the rest of the tone of the show was for me so surfacy, watered-down, base. The whole story seemed mostly to be told from two polarized camps. Clueless moms. Educated medical professionals. The moms and their tones were just to easy to dislike and dismiss. Nothing so interesting as feeling reactionary for me. Just a lot of eye-rolling. And the medical professionals, well, exactly what I would expect. Logical, rational, measured etc.
The bias was obvious, which is fine because, well, I'm pro-vaccine. However, I was very nervous about getting vaccines for my child and I did do a different schedule than was recommended. I relate to the fear of vaccines, but I rolled the dice because I'm committed to public health and interested in the good odds for protecting my children. I totally believe in the scientific method, however my acupuncture appointments are on Tuesdays.
My voice was not in this Frontline piece at all, and yet the last time I checked I am a mom with a vaccinated child. There was no 'gray area' on anything. Since none of the factual information was new, There was not a single thing I could really relate to. They didn't push anything to even a soft edge. I mean, come on, it would only have taken a little cross questioning of Margulis to expose her inability to really defend her position in any factual way. It might at least have been less boring to really see her get uncomfortable Was that interviewer on Valium?
Same same on the other side. No real confronting medical professionals with the reality of vaccine injured children, and what that means for a particular parent in their tiny world with their precious child. Interviews with anyone new Frontline? with anyone else besides those two pretty spokespeople who couldn't possibly come off as half-way serious? Come on Frontline, is this the best you can do.
I could go on, but whatev. I really agreed with a lot of what Emily has said. Except maybe for the part where you mentioned that the program was worth watching. :)
Dominique, I do completely understand what you mean. What I found worth watching about it was the faces to the tones and the words and the voices. It gave me some insight into the people whose words I usually only read, as we don't watch a lot of television. I do agree about the cross-questioning and that it was soft.
And to answer your question, yes, birth in the U.S. is a reallyreallyreally medical event, flat on the back, often (very often) a c-section, the suctioning, the manhandling, drops in the eyes, running off with the baby. In most places, you have to be clear about what you want, or that's what happens. Or...you can have your child at home if you've got a healthy, normal pregnancy and avoid it completely.
I thought the exact thing about Paul Offit: just answer the question, yes. He got paid for his work, his time, his effort. Like every doctor does who's doing his job. Like every one of us who get paid and aren't motivated SOLELY by money. Just answer yes.
Post a Comment