Post by m***@yahoo.comPost by James NeibaurPost by m***@yahoo.comI had heard many news reports ** hours prior** to your "deathwatch"
post and every single story listed him in serious but stable condition.
so did I -- and very very often they downplay the seriousness of a famous
person's condition
Who downplays it? The media? The family?
I don't think the media ever downplays the seriousness of a person's
condition.
It's done routinely. In my own experience, Jackie Gleason. In
everyone else's, Ronald Reagan and the late Pope.
Post by m***@yahoo.comThe media simply reports on the information available to
them. The hospitals seem to do an excellent job of protecting patient
privacy, so the information available to the media is essentially what
the family wants to make public. In this case, they wanted it to be
known that he was in serious but stable condition and expected to make
a full recovery and that was what was reported by several sources.
Families and agents routinely lie about the condition of their pet
celebrities. They are not trustworthy sources.
As sources, hospitals are useless. They occasionally make fully vetted
statements on behalf of the family, which gives the proceedings an air
of authority (and supplies pretty pictures for the 6 o'clock news).
Post by m***@yahoo.comI can see families possibly wanting to downplay the condition but it
doesn't make much sense in this case. If he was in grave condition, I
would just imagine that they would issue a "No comment." rather than
trying to downplay it.
You can imagine whatever you like, but the tendency for families is to
spin the story in a positive way. I really don't blame them for acting
that way, but you can't rely on what the family might say.
In short, it was entirely possible that a local reporter in Chicago had
a good source telling him that Ebert (a major local figure) was dying,
and Mr. Neibaur was correct to pay attention. We've seen obits break
in the oddest places -- Marlon Brando's comes to mind.