"Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist" - sensationalist?

MakeEmLaugh

"Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist"

This was the headline of an article on Indiatimes.com yesterday. Frankly, I think it's one of the most ridiculously biased and sensationalist headlines I've ever read in my life.

To read the article, click here.

Snickers Man

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

"Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist"

It's a tragedy that a beautiful young woman in the prime of her life died at all.

But the hysteria, both at home and abroad, is of no use to anyone.

Is it even certain that a speedy termination would have prevented septicaemia? The Irish Times in its editorial yesterday was loth to say so.

Sound of Silence

It's a reporters job to be sensationalist.

charlemont

Its hypocrisy, India with its caste system can't say nothing about another country.

I do though think it was a disgrace that the unfortunate woman couldn't have an abortion here.

MakeEmLaugh

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's a reporters job to be sensationalist.

Is it also a reporter's job to make shit up?

Bucklesman

Little bit shouty. Still, sometimes a bit of a shout is warranted. Consider the IT's front page on Monday. A large photo of a victim is normal in tabloid coverage. The Times thought the Savita case was worth shouting about.
A good comparison would be Irish coverage of Michaela McAreavey. Was that any less sensational than this headline?

expectationlost

opinion piece

MakeEmLaugh

Bucklesman wrote: »

Little bit shouty. Still, sometimes a bit of a shout is warranted. Consider the IT's front page on Monday. A large photo of a victim is normal in tabloid coverage. The Times thought the Savita case was worth shouting about.
A good comparison would be Irish coverage of Michaela McAreavey. Was that any less sensational than this headline?

I never saw a newspaper headline that implicated the whole of Mauritius in the death of Michaela McAreavey. That said, if I had seen a headline along the lines of "Mauritius Murders Newlywed Irish Woman", I would have found it ridiculously biased and sensationalist. Wouldn't you?

Maire2009

Bucklesman wrote: »

Little bit shouty. Still, sometimes a bit of a shout is warranted. Consider the IT's front page on Monday. A large photo of a victim is normal in tabloid coverage. The Times thought the Savita case was worth shouting about.
A good comparison would be Irish coverage of Michaela McAreavey. Was that any less sensational than this headline?

Just about to say the exact same thing.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I never saw a newspaper headline that implicated the whole of Mauritius in the death of Michaela McAreavey. That said, if I had seen a headline along the lines of "Mauritius Murders Newlywed Irish Woman", I would have found it ridiculously biased and sensationalist. Wouldn't you?

Some were calling for a boycott of the country and seemed to suggest that it was a hell hole. The storm was well and truly whipped up by the media.

Bucklesman

Abortion has been legal in India since 1971. Abortion is in a legal grey area in Ireland, and is the subject of significant controversy. Consider the effect of these contexts on the way a story is framed by the media in the two countries.

An Indian journalist sees the death as a slam-dunk outrage story with a local connection. An Irish journalist sees a a tragedy which embarrasses his country internationally, a legal mess and a quagmire of letters to the editor.

What the Indian press is doing is applying its frame of reference to the Irish one, and finding the dichotomy shocking. Hence the headline, to which OP has applied the Irish mindset.

If you want to look at bias in the international coverage of the Savita story, I found these stories as posted on Broadsheet last night interesting.

Fox News: "How bureaucracy killed a woman"

Salon Magazine: "'Religion' keeps a woman from getting a lifesaving abortion"

These pieces pick up on the story and throw the tragedy at the Religious Right and Big Government respectively -- the two classic bugbears of left and right in the US. The India Times headline throws it at Ireland.

PseudoFamous

Bucklesman wrote: »

Abortion has been legal in India since 1971. Abortion is in a legal grey area in Ireland, and is the subject of significant controversy. Consider the effect of these contexts on the way a story is framed by the media in the two countries.

An Indian journalist sees the death as a slam-dunk outrage story with a local connection. An Irish journalist sees a a tragedy which embarrasses his country internationally, a legal mess and a quagmire of letters to the editor.

What the Indian press is doing is applying its frame of reference to the Irish one, and finding the dichotomy shocking. Hence the headline, to which OP has applied the Irish mindset.

Abortion results in 20,000 maternal deaths in India per year, I assume they all don't get such headlines.

Condatis

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It's a reporters job to be sensationalist.

No: It is a reporters role to report.

MakeEmLaugh

Maire2009 wrote: »

Just about to say the exact same thing.

Some were calling for a boycott of the country and seemed to suggest that it was a hell hole. The storm was well and truly whipped up by the media.

So you're saying two wrongs make a right?

Maire2009

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

So you're saying two wrongs make a right?

What are you talking about?

Some people here are making the "foreign" media out as painting Ireland as some back arse country, and myself and some others are merely stating the Irish can't exactly get on our high horse about it considering the way our media reports.

Don't think that is too complicated a concept to grasp?!

MakeEmLaugh

Maire2009 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Some people here are making the "foreign" media out as painting Ireland as some back arse country, and myself and some others are merely stating the Irish can't exactly get on our high horse about it considering the way our media reports.

Don't think that is too complicated a concept to grasp?!

Either it was biased and sensationalist to write a headline that said "Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist", or it was not biased and sensationalist.

Bringing up media coverage of Michael McAreavey's death is of no relevance whatsoever.

IRE60

A

Maire2009 wrote: »

back arse country

is one that can't legislate properly for scenarios that have risen numerous times in 20 years, or one that appoints the HSE to review the possible failings of the HSE!

Maire2009

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Either it was biased and sensationalist to write a headline that said "Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist", or it was not biased and sensationalist.

Bringing up media coverage of Michael McAreavey's death is of no relevance whatsoever.

Everyone knows it's sensationalist, however this is an open forum where people DISCUSS threads.

So, what, the OP post this and everyone comes in, types "yes" and leaves? Rather pointless! The OP posted this (I'm guessing) as Irish people may be rightly put out by the portrayal of our country. And while we are backwards in terms of abortion law, we are not some backward hell hole. Neither is Mauritius, but the Irish media portrayed it as such last year. A COMPARISON. Compare and contrast - basic JC English.

You seem a bit precious about this?

Maire2009

IRE60 wrote: »

A is one that can't legislate properly for scenarios that have risen numerous times in 20 years, or one that appoints the HSE to review the possible failings of the HSE!

I agree 100% with your post, but I wouldn't say we're "back arse" but we still have to make progress.

expectationlost

what did they write in their print edition?

IRE60

There is no justification to bring up the death of Michael McAreavey in this instance.

It was an individual of a certain nationality that took her life - Mauritius got a small backlash.

Until all the facts, not the suppositions that have been flying around, are fully recognised then it’s impossible to be accurate at this juncture.

However if it is found that they wouldn’t terminate because of the restraints placed on them by our constitution, then the India Times headline may be much more accurate than one would like and not completely sensationalist - even if it may offend some in the country.

Bucklesman

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Abortion results in 20,000 maternal deaths in India per year, I assume they all don't get such headlines.

As it turns out, many of them do!

Again, the societal norm expected by the mass media is that abortions must be safe and legal. The Irish story has a certain consonance with the previous reporting of the Indian media -- but gets a man-bites-dog twist from the fact that this death happened not to an illiterate provincial, but a professional living in a First World country like Ireland.

Maire2009

IRE60 wrote: »

There is no justification to bring up the death of Michael McAreavey in this instance.

It was an individual of a certain nationality that took her life - Mauritius got a small backlash.

Until all the facts, not the suppositions that have been flying around, are fully recognised then it’s impossible to be accurate at this juncture.

However if it is found that they wouldn’t terminate because of the restraints placed on them by our constitution, then the India Times headline may be much more accurate than one would like and not completely sensationalist - even if it may offend some in the country.

Ah, okay, fair enough in that case, although I do still feel Mauritius got a very bad backlash from here. But if that was what the other poster was referring to, then fair enough.

The term "murder" is wrong though in the title, I personally feel the Irish state has to answer on a charge of manslaughter.

IRE60

Yes - perhaps murder is a bit strong.

As to the OP asking what the put in the print edition ist difficult to track - however they are still on that drive today

MakeEmLaugh

Maire2009 wrote: »

Everyone knows it's sensationalist, however this is an open forum where people DISCUSS threads.

So, what, the OP post this and everyone comes in, types "yes" and leaves? Rather pointless! The OP posted this (I'm guessing) as Irish people may be rightly put out by the portrayal of our country. And while we are backwards in terms of abortion law, we are not some backward hell hole. Neither is Mauritius, but the Irish media portrayed it as such last year. A COMPARISON. Compare and contrast - basic JC English.

You seem a bit precious about this?

Well, I am the OP, and yes, I did want to generate discussion about this. However, this story has only emerged in the last 72 hours. It will be two years in January since Michael McAreavey died.

I did not like the media coverage of that case either, or the calls to boycott Mauritius (which were mostly the work of anonymous internet trolls, not professional journalists). However, this issue is much more relevant at the moment.

As a pro-choice atheist, I not only believe abortion should be permitted in the case of the mother's life being at risk, I believe abortion should be available to the same extent as it is in our nearest neighbour, Britain.

I feel angry and saddened about the events of this week, but I do not feel "shame", nor do I believe the majority of people who have professed feelings of "shame" this week. Keeping a close eye on my facebook news feed, many of those who claim to be "ashamed" to be Irish are also tagging themselves at bars, restaurants and other venues which we, as a first world country, enjoy. If they are truly in grief over the death of Savita Halappanavar, they have an odd way of showing it.

Saying you are "ashamed" to be Irish accomplishes exactly fuck all. The full circumstances surrounding this death have yet to come to light. According to an article (visible here) published in The Lancet, the world's leading medical journal, Ireland is the sixth safest country in the world to give birth. That does not mean we should not legislate for terminations in cases where the mother's life is at risk, but attempting to paint Ireland as some backward Taliban-esque country is nonsense.

The Catholic Church did not kill Savita Halappannavar. Nor did Ireland. Nor was her death "murder". It was a serious error of judgment from one medical consultant, who may well be struck off after an enquiry.

By the way, I am not criticising India or Indians. I am criticising the one idiotic journalist who felt it appropriate to publish such a biased and sensationalist headline, which will only serve to poison relations between our two countries.

Maire2009

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Well, I am the OP, and yes, I did want to generate discussion about this. However, this story has only emerged in the last 72 hours. It will be two years in January since Michael McAreavey died.

I did not like the media coverage of that case either, or the calls to boycott Mauritius (which were mostly the work of anonymous internet trolls, not professional journalists). However, this issue is much more relevant at the moment.

As a pro-choice atheist, I not only believe abortion should be permitted in the case of the mother's life being at risk, I believe abortion should be available to the same extent as it is in our nearest neighbour, Britain.

I feel angry and saddened about the events of this week, but I do not feel "shame", nor do I believe the majority of people who have professed feelings of "shame" this week. Keeping a close eye on my facebook news feed, many of those who claim to be "ashamed" to be Irish are also tagging themselves at bars, restaurants and other venues which we, as a first world country, enjoy. If they are truly in grief over the death of Savita Halappanavar, they have an odd way of showing it.

Saying you are "ashamed" to be Irish accomplishes exactly fuck all. The full circumstances surrounding this death have yet to come to light. According to an article (visible here) published in The Lancet, the world's leading medical journal, Ireland is the sixth safest country in the world to give birth. That does not mean we should not legislate for terminations in cases where the mother's life is at risk, but attempting to paint Ireland as some backward Taliban-esque country is nonsense.

The Catholic Church did not kill Savita Halappannavar. Nor did Ireland. Nor was her death "murder". It was a serious error of judgment from one medical consultant, who may well be struck off after an enquiry.

By the way, I am not criticising India or Indians. I am criticising the one idiotic journalist who felt it appropriate to publish such a biased and sensationalist headline, which will only serve to poison relations between our two countries.

After all that, I agree 100% with you even if it seemed like I was ranting

Just one question though, on the highlighted part; would it have been legal for the consultant to abort the pregnancy or would s/he be struck off for doing so as it's against the law. I'm just confused whether an abortion was actually legal in this case. I thought all abortion was outlawed here.

Loafing Oaf

Maire2009 wrote: »

The term "murder" is wrong though in the title, I personally feel the Irish state has to answer on a charge of manslaughter.

Does anyone know the legal ins and outs of this. Could some international court find Ireland's laws responsible for Sarita's death and thereby entitle the Indian state to sue the Irish state for compensation or, I dunno, intern us all on some benighted island off the coast of...oh wait...

MakeEmLaugh

Maire2009 wrote: »

After all that, I agree 100% with you even if it seemed like I was ranting

Just one question though, on the highlighted part; would it have been legal for the consultant to abort the pregnancy or would s/he be struck off for doing so as it's against the law. I'm just confused whether an abortion was actually legal in this case. I thought all abortion was outlawed here.

I doubt she would have been struck off for doing so. A referendum was passed twenty years stating that if a woman's life is in danger, abortion is permissible. Of course, no government has tackled this issue because it is so toxic and volatile, and certainly to that extent, successive Irish government's partly responsible for this death.

However, it has not yet been determined that Savita Halappanavar's death would have definitely been prevented had an abortion been performed.