Sensationalism Or Journalism?

Months after Autumn underwent a successful kidney donation operation and had been recuperating at home, she was contacted by a news reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle. He wanted to talk to Autumn and interview her about being a kidney donor for an article he was working on. Autumn agreed to meet with this reporter and tell her story. Her hope was to make other people aware of kidney donation issues and by being a living donor she was able to save another person's life. By making her sacrifice public, maybe it would inspire other people to follow her example.

On August 11, 2002 the San Francisco Chronicle ran her story. Sort of. It was a simple enough tale to tell, a woman agreed to become a living kidney donor for a stranger and by doing so saved another human being from death. Instead of going with a positive story of inspiration, instead of actually educating the public about kidney donation issues, the Chronicle's staff writer chose to write what I like to refer to as a "fear story." Fear stories are common enough spin in the news these days. They are designed to sell newspapers and scare dingbat housewives. That's about it. The more sensational a headline is, the better. Autumn's story appeared with the headline Transplant patients turn to Internet Health officials wary of black market in body parts. Oh, scary! I didn't know that Craigslist was a black market human organ clearinghouse!

I read the article. It was truly ridiculous. Laughable even. The Chronicle's reporter didn't waste any time jumping straight into a bunch of dubious overdramatic bullshit. He described the plight of a man in need of a kidney donation asking for help by way of the internet as a person who had wandered into the complex world of organ trading. Gimmie a fuckin' break. All that guy did was post an ad begging for assistance from someone. Anyone. Is that organ trading? I think not. The article continued. Against a backdrop of desperate people and the unprecedented reach of Internet marketing, officials worry that the ingredients are in place for an electronic black market in body parts. Ah, I see. The ingredients are in place. Take a dash of internet, a cup full of kidney and a body or two and you've got an "electronic black market in body parts." So does that mean the black market in body parts has started yet or is it still in the works? What a joke.

Autumn's experience as a living kidney donor was used as nothing more than a backdrop, an example if you will, for a story that had little if anything to do with her. It was about as poor an example as you could possibly find for proof of black market internet organ trading. Autumn and the old guy that got her kidney were two consenting adults that worked out a cut and dry deal between themselves. Very little money was involved. Autumn only asked that in return for her kidney, any costs incurred should be paid for by the kidney recipient. That meant her plane flights, hotel room, meals, and a couple weeks of lost pay from her job would be covered. Her requests were sensible and reasonable. No federal or state laws were being broken in this situation, despite a few wingnut claims to the contrary in the Chronicle's article. When I finished reading the crap news article I realized any opportunity for something positive to come out of it was totally thrown away.

Nice job, assholes.