Posted by Iansf on March 26, 2005, at 12:06:14
In reply to the press does it again, posted by cubbybear on March 26, 2005, at 7:17:59
> I realize that this note might get re-directed, but I couldn't help commenting on the news story that I read on the Yahoo website tonight, re: the Minn. school shootings. Those good old reporters positively "have to" mention in the lead paragraph that the shooter was taking an anti-depressant, namely Prozac, prior to the rampage. For once I can empathize with the drug manufacturers over this useless sensationalist garbage. I mean, the FDA has already mandated a black box warning on every AD about administering them to young people, so what is mentioning the shooter's taking of Prozac in the article intended to accomplish now? Am I missing something?
The information the boy was on Prozac is relevant to the story. The fact the warnings are on the box makes it relevant. His use of Prozac also reveals he was being treated for a mental imbalance of some sort, presumably depression, and it indicates at least one medical professional was aware the boy was having trouble. If the reporter moves beyond the facts to say or imply the boy's use of Prozac led him to commit the crime, then he is editorializing. The charges against Prozac, whether ill or well founded, are out there and already highly publicized. Reporters can't simply ignore the issue. They would be derelict in their duty if they deliberately omitted the information.
poster:Iansf
thread:475720
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050326/msgs/475793.html