I am a veteran insomniac, and while I'm in my bed waiting on morning (and John Cusack), I like to listen to the BBC News World Service. The warm round audio is so very lulling. Plus it's interesting, informative, and balanced (shut up Colin/Ron/Ray). I especially like the in-depth features---that's good stuff. The men and women who do that fine work are true stars.
So imagine my surprise. I got an email late this afternoon at work from Tilly C, from the BBC World News Service Washington, DC, Bureau. She's working up a piece on the newly-affirmed pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medications based on said pharmacist's moral beliefs. I thought about doing that story too, because it's just the sort of red-flag topic that gets me snorting and pawing at the ground with my right toe. (btw if you see me doing this and I glare at you and then lower my head, RUN!) But 2.5 seconds later I remembered I work on the "happy news!" pharmacy publication.
But imagine my amused surprise. It sounded like she wanted to interview me! This would be loads of fun and lord knows I've got 10 or 20 thousand words to say on the topic, but I chose to interpret her request for an interview as a request for pharmacists to interview. (Plus I want to keep this job for a little while longer.) So I replied and asked whether she wanted to interview clinical pharmacists or thought-leaders in the profession or what--"just let me know and I"ll hook you up!" Later, however, I reread her note and saw that she wants to do a piece that is *favorable* to the ruling. What!? Noooo! Tell me it isn't so!
Now imagine your surprise. You present your *legal* prescription, obtained from your *licensed* Medical Doctor for your *professionally diagnosed* medical condition to your pharmacist so that he/she can dispense your *medically necessary* therapy. Instead, this smock-wearing pocket protector-sporting pill counter tells you "No. You can not have that medicine. It would be wrong for me to give it to you." And in a blink, you can be denied access to birth control pills and patches as well as emergency contraception to help following unintentional exposure to the potential for pregnancy (eg, thoughtless fun/rape/incest) because your local pharmacist is a Right to Life supporter. And just so you don't get the idea that it's all on women, imagine that your prescription for any one of the many drugs for erectile disorder is declined--"Ha ha, no, ha ha, I'm sorry, but we don't support FORNICATORS! here." And imagine bellying up to the pharmacy bench with your prescription for Z0vir@x, a safe and effective treatment for herpes virus--"You're dirty! DIRTY!" Sounds a bit Twilight Zone, doesn't it. How can an entire profession become Stepfordwived like that? It's crazy, right? No. Not at all.
Imagine your surprise again. You move to a good neighborhood with your family--Tight-Knit Nabe with High-Perfoming Schools, Ohio. But there's an unreasonable, but highly mobilized and heavily funded element within that community. You don't worry because it's only zero point three percent of the population of your community, but it is so incredibly noisy and obnoxious and intimidating that everyone else falls silent, business owners cower, retreat, and *kowtow.* The doctors fall next, unwilling to even prescribe "controversial" therapies, and soon thereafter, entire communities are denied access to certain types of health care. Next we're saddled with some kind of bandy-legged ape for a leader and are caught in all manner of outrageous quagmires around the globe while at home we stand by silently while our social programs are dismantled and the finances plundered by ultra-rich insiders. Oy , I seem to have gotten off on a rant here...Please excuse...
1. The BBC aka Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation aka Bu**ers Broadcasting Communism is just about as intrinsically lefty-biased as it's possible for a so called 'public' broadcaster to be.
Please please please don't think that it's balanced, it isn't!
2. I agree with the rest of your post, although it's not a phenomenon we are seeing over here yet.
3. Top ranting! :-)
Posted by: Co-lin | March 31, 2005 at 01:53 AM
Are you kidding colin? You may say the bbc leans. But you don't have to deal with FOX news. I generally go to the BBC news online for north american news because it seems to be just the facts to me.
Maybe they don't skew the US news because it's not part of the UK which they are based in. But BBC news seems more partial to me than most american news agencies.
Posted by: wedge | March 31, 2005 at 07:13 AM
Wedge - I've heard about Fox News, and I can't say anything about it with reference to US coverage. But over this side of the pond, Sky News is generally considered to be the most impartial.
The BBC has historically been considered to be almost apolitical, but in recent years, specifically under the ruling 'New Labour' Government, it has become increasingly 'Left' in its reporting bias on all manner of issues - Iraq, the EU and more.
Have a look at the BBC Newswatch site for more discussion about BBC News...
Posted by: Co-lin | March 31, 2005 at 08:23 AM
ok, ok, BBC isn't 'balanced,' Colin. It's *accurate.* I stand corrected. ;-)
Wedge, FOX News. I can only shudder.
Posted by: em | March 31, 2005 at 09:23 AM
Hmm, semantics....
I won't push my luck though, since I've virtually 'blog-squatted' in your comments :-)
Posted by: Co-lin | March 31, 2005 at 09:28 AM
I read "veteran insomniac" as "vegetarian insomniac" - and wondered if you spent your nights eating lentils or something...
And how does John Cusack come into the equation? Can he come into my equation too? ;)
Posted by: witho | March 31, 2005 at 10:30 AM
witho, back away from my John Cusack and nobody gets hurt. ;-)
Posted by: em | March 31, 2005 at 10:36 AM
Okay, okay, I'll put my equation away. For now...
Posted by: witho | March 31, 2005 at 10:44 AM
well, i guess i could be wrong about the BBC, but it seems ok to me. Fox news is basicaly Bush-tell-them-to-say-we-do-what-bush-likes-news-channel
And I think that I speak for all the guys when i say that you ladies can do what you wish with your equations. And, it would be perfectly fine if your equations added up together. ;P
Posted by: wedge | March 31, 2005 at 11:00 AM
I can't agree more on the pharmacist "moral minority" group issue.
As applies to everyone else: if your value system prevents you from doing your job it's time to look for a new field, not the nearest national news outlet for eternal martyrdom status...
Posted by: Diann | March 31, 2005 at 12:36 PM
I'm rarely roused but if it's not the Royal Family it's Religious Fascism today.
OOohhhh where's that second gear....
Posted by: Greavsie | March 31, 2005 at 12:44 PM
That's blown my planned trip to America for thoughtless fun/rape/incest.
I got a letter from the local book selling people and my stuttering mafia book has arrived!
Posted by: Johnny the Horse | March 31, 2005 at 04:27 PM
oh you are going to like that! the book, that is...
Posted by: em | March 31, 2005 at 06:26 PM
For the information of other Americans, the BBC is *not* generally considered particularly leftie-biased here, except by the sort of constituency who in the US call CNN the "Communist News Network"; it recently got into trouble, for instance, for including pieces by armed forces broadcasters without mentioning that little detail, and statistics indicate that it published an unusual number of stories in support of the invasion of Iraq.
Generally, Channel 4 News is considered the best. Sky News, while surprisingly good for a Murdoch channel, particularly recently, is still a Murdoch channel.
Posted by: fridgemagnet | April 05, 2005 at 07:17 AM