Don’t get me wrong. I’m not out to demonize a woman who has obviously done loads for maternal and reproductive health. At 54 years old, Robin Lim has helped thousands of poverty-stricken Indonesian women to experience a healthy pregnancy and to safely give birth, and for that, she most certainly deserves to be hailed as this year’s CNN Hero.
As a rabid supporter of the passage of the local Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, it gladdens me to know that a person has actually built her life around providing the poorest of mothers with prenatal and postpartum care, birth services, and breast-feeding support — and has done so for free. Her Yayasan Bumi Sehat Foundation has done more for reproductive health in a single day than the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has done in, well, ever. I seriously wish that there were more people as passionate and take-charge about the cause as she is.
Here we go again, Inquirer
What doesn’t sit well with me, however, is how the media is playing up the fact that she is an advocate of “alternative medicine.” I’m giving the stink eye to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, in particular, because as far as I know, CNN and other news outfits have yet to mention the words “hilot,” “alternative,” “homeopathy,” and “herbal medicine” in its features of Lim, whereas the Inquirer has been practically framing her as the poster woman for “No Therapeutic Claims,” and actually sees this love for quackery as a good thing. (Incidentally, FF has had quite a beef with the Inquirer’s integrity, as can be read here, here, here, and here.)
Take note that Lim was awarded mainly for her outstanding efforts to practice and promote safe birthing. CNN as the awarding body did not bestow her the honor because she felt that “there should be a reinvention of the health-care system by including holistic medicine such as acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine and physiotherapy.” If that were actually the case, then Deepak “Quantum Mysticism” Chopra should have been crowned President of the fucking Universe ages ago
Shit sells
Sensationalism is the culprit here, I think. It is this horrid excuse for journalism that possibly encouraged the Inquirer’s writers to play up the “alternative medicine” angle. In line with local media’s never-ending, unnerving campaign for this thing called “Pinoy pride,” there’s a good chance that this facet of the half-Filipino Lim was highlighted because her traditional healing background was the most “Filipino” of her qualities. This nation is, after all, known for its folkloric herbal concoctions and its faith healers, never mind that these concoctions can’t hold a candle to actual lab-developed drugs, and that these healers are money-grubbing quacks of the highest order. (This broadsheet has, unsurprisingly, had a history of publishing scientifically unsound things like “miracles” as fact, so there’s that.)
Another possibility is that Lim herself insisted on the topic of her Inquirer piece. If that were the case, though, then the Inquirer should have suggested a different angle, or at the very least peppered the article with disclaimers regarding the efficacy of traditional healing methods, in the hopes of maintaining the barest smidge of journalistic credibility. But they didn’t.
Ooga booga and mumbo jumbo
“Alternative medicine” is a load of bull. As the old joke goes, “alternative medicine” that is proven to work is just called “medicine.” It is this staggering lack of proof — and its advocates’ insistence that proof is neither necessary nor applicable — that sets the former apart from the latter. It goes out of its way to be baseless and unscientific, depending on flimsy, abstract concepts such as “auras” and “chakras” that have as much chance of being real as unicorns, mermaids, and the Jonas Brothers’ pledge of virginity. And while some unconventional healing methods are said to be okay complements for actual, scientifically proven methods and medicines, this so-called “complementary medicine” cannot and should not stand alone.
Even if Lim advocated the methods that worked in certain, complementary ways (and I use the term “work” very, very lightly), it was still publicized by the Inquirer in such a way that she seemed to be for “alternative medicine” in general, which includes a long, snaking list of very bad decisions. (She espouses the whackadoodle fad that is homeopathy, which is bad enough, so imagine how much worse the stuff she doesn’t espouse are.)
Moreover, it’s also quite unfortunate and ironic that the article, which features a woman known for her hard work in furthering reproductive health, placed so much emphasis on highly suspect “remedies” that have nothing to do with RH, and in no way mentions how certain lab-developed medicines can do and have done so much for maternal health. In fact, it’s disheartening how the RH Bill, which promotes safe, effective, and clinically approved medicines in the form of family planning supplies, can be so easily dismissed by many, while something as impotent — and fatal — as faith healing gets good press at the drop of a hat.
A bad influence
In the end, by playing up this sorely misguided aspect of Lim’s, the Inquirer can be said to be taking part in putting people in danger. Ranked as the top newspaper in the Philippines, it’s safe to say that this broadsheet helps to influence many Filipinos’ opinions. It is only right, then, that they make sure that the stuff they offer as journalism is, in fact, journalism and not just a bunch of interesting-sounding yet highly deceptive words. But this is sadly not the case.
This piece on Lim could very well encourage many people to prioritize alternative methods over tried-and-tested ones and, thus, keep these people from getting the proper medical attention every one of them deserves. “If an actual CNN Hero is for it, then it can’t be wrong” is the kind of opinion that might proliferate. As much as we hope people to be more discerning of what they read, it’s always better to be safe than sorry and, in the Inquirer’s case, absolutely necessary to be factual than not.
__
Images from thejakartapost.com; policeheadlines.com; and skepacabra.wordpress.com
Actually, nobody is "painting a CNN hero in a dangerous light". From the Bumi Sehat Foundation International's own webpage:
Bumi Sehat is committed to ensuring that our community has access to continuity of health care services. As such, we provide general health services for the public. These services include pediatric and prenatal care, acupuncture, yoga, Reiki and emergency health services.
Notice that some of the health services they provide are actually considered "alternative". Maybe you owe the PDI an apology, no?
Be that as it may, the Inquirer shouldn't have highlighted any alternative practice in the first place without making the necessary disclaimers. True journalists are skeptical and factual, and should not just lift information from the press kits and boiler plate statements of the institutions they feature.
So, by your account, they should have reported something other than what reflected reality.
Robin Lim won an award. Those are the things she does and ostensibly believes in. Since she believes in "bull", as you eloquently put it, you're free to wax indignant about her reception of the award. But, certainly, nobody is "painting her in a dangerous light" since that's the light she paints herself in.
If you prefer PDI downplayed the 'alternative medicine' bit, fine. But you're accusing them of misrepresenting Robin Lim, which they aren't doing.
The article didn't claim that the Inquirer was misrepresenting Lim. In fact, it does admit that she openly believes in these things. Where in the article does it say that Lim does NOT condone alternative medicine?
The problem with the Inquirer is that Lim won not for her alternative medicine advocacy, but for her work in safe birthing, so it would have been far, far better if the paper highlighted the latter rather than the former. Safe birthing and reproductive health are compelling enough topics, but the Inquirer chose to highlight the alternative medicine thing and, therefore, chose to highlight her dangerous side.
Your response would make sense if the author didn't use the "paint..in a bad light" idiom, which means exactly that, to misrepresent or portray someone negatively. She wasn't portrayed negatively because that's how she portrays herself.
Like I said, you have a right to wax indignant about her reception of the award, but certainly, PDI has no fault in portraying her the way she really is. That's truth in journalism.
The alternative medicine part was mentioned because that linked her to her Filipino roots. Filipinos, for good or for ill, like those kinds of mentions. It makes them feel proud to be Filipinos.
[…PDI has no fault in portraying her the way she really is. That's truth in journalism.]
Nowhere did the author deny the truth regarding Lim's advocacy of alternative medicine. However, there is a big difference between reporting all sides of the story on the one hand and blowing one aspect of the story out of proportions on the other. The PDI clearly opted for the latter in its "an alternative medicine advocate won the CNN Heroes award" spin.
[The alternative medicine part was mentioned because that linked her to her Filipino roots.]
This is exactly why the author was resentful of the PDI's choice of which aspect of Lim to highlight. It stinks of sensationalism.
[Filipinos, for good or for ill, like those kinds of mentions. It makes them feel proud to be Filipinos.]
When did respectable journalism become about pandering to the masses's desperate wish to hold on to a false sense of national pride?
Again, read the title. That's where she accused PDI of misrepresentation. Although, it's also possible the author was unaware of what the idiom means and how it's conventionally used, so there's that.
No, I don't think I ever said anything about respectable journalism needing to pander to anything. Robin wrote a book where a character was based on her Grandmother who believed in "woo woo".
The author is clutching at straws here to "paint" PDI in a bad light. So if anyone's doing the painting..
"Her grandmother inspired Lim to pursue traditional healing practices and become a midwife in a small village in Nyuh Kuning in Bali, Indonesia."
Unless this angle is false, which I doubt it is, then it's fine to mention it since it is exactly how Robin "paints" herself –as a believer in certain kinds of alternative medicine. So she wasn't portrayed negatively, or misrepresented at all. She says she was inspired by her grandmother. If that's the truth then that's the truth.
[Again, read the title.]
I agree that the title could use a little rewording. But who judges an essay based on its title alone?
[No, I don't think I ever said anything about respectable journalism needing to pander to anything.]
Yes, you didn't say it outright, but what can you say about the implications of the following statement?
[The alternative medicine part was mentioned because that linked her to her Filipino roots. Filipinos, for good or for ill, like those kinds of mentions. It makes them feel proud to be Filipinos.]
Are you not here defending blowing the alternative medicine angle out of proportion just because a lot of the PDI's readers will eat it up? So what if alternative medicine makes them proud of being Filipinos? So what if they like hearing it mentioned? When did the truth become about what pleases the public's ears?
[Unless this angle is false, which I doubt it is…]
No one is denying this angle. I hope this is the last time I have to say this: It is not the truth of this angle that is at issue, it is its blowing out of proportion by the PDI.
[…then it's fine to mention it since it is exactly how Robin "paints" herself –as a believer in certain kinds of alternative medicine.]
Well, if it was just "mentioned", then there surely is no cause for Margie's indignation in her article. But no, instead of just mentioning it, the PDI used this one aspect of Lim as leverage to spin the news. Again, there is a huge gap between featuring all sides of a story — which mentioning Lim's alternative medicine advocacy would have accomplished — and using one facet of the story to write a sensational feature that will sell — which is what the PDI opted for.
Since you say the title "needs rewording", are you admitting that the author erred? Could it be that she attempted a little sensationalism, then? Or was it just a miscalculation?
I don't see any "alternative medicine angle" being blown out of proportion. All I see is the PDI writer mentioning what Ms. Lim herself says inspired her to do what she's doing. She was even quoted saying that much. It seems the only thing that's being blown out of proportion is the author's accusations against the PDI.
I never said the truth "becomes what pleases the public's ears". Although it's interesting that you want the truth to be what pleases your ears. If she was inspired by her Grandmother so much so that she based a character in her novel about her, then that's the truth.
Nobody may be "denying" that Ms. Lim believes in alternative medicine, but the title certainly suggests that misrepresentation was done by the PDI — something you seem to have admitted to some extent.
And, you're clutching at straws here to show PDI spun the news. Please note that that's not the only thing they've written about Ms. Lim. They've written other things about her where alternative medicine was not mentioned. Obviously, they wanted another angle for the same story –the one that shows how she was inspired to be a hero because of her Filipino roots.
I don't see anything wrong with that. But, ofcourse, the author has already put her PDI-can-do-no-good goggles on. So who is painting who in a bad light?
Even if the title could use a little rewording, the whole of the article hardly warrants an apology from the author. And by the way, the article at issue here is just a scroll up away, in case you missed it. Kindly read it again before you paint its author in a bad light.
Then again, let me call your attention to the following lines:
[The alternative medicine part was mentioned because that linked her to her Filipino roots. Filipinos, for good or for ill, like those kinds of mentions. It makes them feel proud to be Filipinos.]
Your words betray a lot, don't they? You yourself understand very well the reasons for PDI's "mentioning" Lim's alternative medicine aspect. Worse still, your above statements can be easily construed as a justification of spinning news to please Filipino readers. If what you thought when you were typing those three sentences above is what Desiree Caluza thought when she was writing her article, then I certainly agree with Margie that there is cause for consternation. A respectable journalist should not dedicate a whole section on 'Traditional Healthcare' just because it links Lim "to her Filipino roots" which makes the PDI's readers "proud to be Filipinos."
[It seems the only thing that's being blown out of proportion is the author's accusations against the PDI.]
A whole section on 'Traditional Medicine' and more; does this aspect of Lim's work — an aspect no one is denying — deserve that much mileage? But then again, you yourself betrayed the fact that you understand — that you even identify with — Ms. Caluza's intention for highlighting Lim's alternative medicine advocacy. In your own words, it's because "Filipinos…like those kinds of mentions." Your words man, not mine.
[Nobody may be "denying" that Ms. Lim believes in alternative medicine, but the title certainly suggests that misrepresentation was done by the PDI — something you seem to have admitted to some extent.]
Well, this aspect of the argument is closed. But read the article again and see for yourself that the author owes the PDI no apology.
[Obviously, they wanted another angle for the same story –the one that shows how she was inspired to be a hero because of her Filipino roots.]
Another angle? Have you read the title of the article? It screams "Filipino nominee to CNN Heroes inspired by traditional healing." Don't you agree that even the title alone deserves a make-over?
And if Ms. Caluza really wanted a balanced story, why not spend an at least equal number of words detailing Caluza's work with Yayasan Bumi Sehat? Why dwell so much on the "hilot" and "Pinoy pride" angle? Or for chrissakes, why not insert a disclaimer warning the reader that alternative medicine has not yet be proven safe and effective? After all, when alternative drugs are advertised on TV, they are required by law to include a "No approved therapeutic claims" disclaimer. Where is this disclaimer in Caluza's article?
But you already know the answer to the questions above.
It seems you're under the impression that every article that's written with the idea that it might interest readers must contain truth that's been spun. Disabuse your mind of such shallow logic.
I wasn't going to use this mistake of yours, because it was too easy. But since you're the one who started making broad assumptions based on a very uncharitable interpretation of what I said, here goes:
Since you use the word "spin" a lot to describe what PDI had done, I'm wondering why you, in the same paragraph, claim that no accusation of misrepresentation was made. You really ought to know what it means to accuse someone of "spin[ning]" a story, right? That's right, it means that that someone is misrepresenting something. See? If you're going to be pedantic, I can just out-pedant you.
Again, how exactly can PDI "spin" the story, when it's a story that not only reflects reality (ostensibly), but is also what Ms. Lim herself says?
You want the truth to be reported, but not the truth of what inspired Ms Lim? Why?
I'm not the one who needs to disabuse himself of shallow logic. Nowhere did I imply that writing about what people want to hear is spinning the truth. But blowing one aspect of the news out of proportion to the detriment of other aspects is something entirely different. If the Inquirer wanted to write about a CNN Hero who was inspired by traditional medicine because readers will like reading about it, that's fine. But that is clearly not what Inquirer did — something you have consistently overlooked. What Inquirer did is overplay one aspect of this news because their readers will eat it up. Worse, they did it to the detriment of the best aspects of the news. Notice that Lim's work with Yayasan Bumi Sehat was given very little mileage. Now tell me that this is what respectable journalism is all about.
Let me ask you the following questions (again): If the Inquirer wants a balanced coverage, then why did its writer not "spend an at least equal number of words detailing Caluza's work with Yayasan Bumi Sehat? Why dwell so much on the 'hilot' and 'Pinoy pride' angle? Or for chrissakes, why not insert a disclaimer warning the reader that alternative medicine has not yet be proven safe and effective? After all, when alternative drugs are advertised on TV, they are required by law to include a 'No approved therapeutic claims' disclaimer. Where is this disclaimer in Caluza's article?"
Why you chose not answer the above questions is quite telling. Perhaps you do not have an answer to them, so you resort to pedantry? 😐
You see, it's a simple as this: If you can't convince us that the Inquirer gave all aspects of Lim's work balanced treatment, then this discussion is pointless. After all, Margie never — I repeat, NEVER — denied the source of Lim's inspiration. What she was indignant about was the unbalanced reporting by the Inquirer. So, was the Inquirer's report balanced or not? It all boils down to that.
Since Margie's article is just a scroll-up away, read it again and see for yourself that the article's author does not owe Inquirer an apology. I even challenge you to quote lines from the above article that warrant contrition from its author. You just can't, can ya? I thought so.
BTW, don't let your ego and testosterone get in the way of our argument, Miguel.
I guess I'll have to repeat myself. Read the title. That's where she accused PDI of misrepresentation.
And you seem to have missed the part where I asked you why you use the word "spin" while simultaneously asserting no accusation of misrepresentation was made.
Your whole argument rests on an assertion that the PDI article decided to overplay one aspect and thus was "unbalanced". Are you sure you exercise the same restraint you're asking them to exercise in your calumnies? You've just written diatribes about the Catholic Church, did you put a disclaimer that, pound for pound, the Church does more good than any other institution here in this country? No I don't think so.
Obviously, they wanted a different angle for an old story. There's nothing wrong with that. You can't include all the aspects of a story all the time.
This is just begging to be pointed out:
"I even challenge you to quote lines from the above article that warrant contrition from its author. You just can't, can ya? I thought so. "
— What have I been saying all along? Read the title. Maybe you'll get it right this time. As far as the "ego and testosterone" goes, please stop projecting.
[I guess I'll have to repeat myself. Read the title. That's where she accused PDI of misrepresentation.]
So I guess I'll have to repeat myself as well. Just because the title needs a little rewording does not imply that Margie owes Inquirer an apology. You simply cannot judge the article based on its title. (Perhaps you made your comment above before you read the whole article?)
[Your whole argument rests on an assertion that the PDI article decided to overplay one aspect and thus was "unbalanced". Are you sure you exercise the same restraint you're asking them to exercise in your calumnies?]
Miles separate the blogger from the journalist, don't you agree? Do you think an internet commenter should be given the same responsibility as a journalist? See, that's what I'm talking about. The journalist has a heavy burden on her. In fact, Inquirer's burden is heavier that Margie's burden — the former is a respected newspaper, the latter is a blogger.
[What have I been saying all along? Read the title. Maybe you'll get it right this time.]
An apology from a blogger to a newspaper because the blogger's title needs a little rewording? That's what you are essentially demanding. Is it a reasonable demand? And why concentrate on the title? Is it the only part of the article you can find a fault in?
[As far as the "ego and testosterone" goes, please stop projecting.]
Oh give me a break. You were the one who lost his calm first. There's documentation upstairs, if you care to check.
I'm not interested in rehashing arguments I've already made.
The title accuses someone of misrepresentation, and so you say it needs "rewording". O.K. that's fine.
And as far as fairness goes, you argue you're not constrained by the standards you'd like to impose on the PDI, since you're not a journalist — nevermind that assuming this much already begs the question. Fine.
I can rest assured that unbiased, reasonable thinking people who go over our exchange can see how you're being much too generous to yourself.
As for your second attempt at arm-chair psychoanalysis, sadly, it reveals more about yourself than anyone else.
Also, you refused to answer a lot of my valid challenges. Kindly read again my comment of 4 days ago and answer the valid challenges. At least, show that they are not valid. (I checked them again just a while ago — they are valid.)
Happy new year, my favorite pedant! 🙂
When you say that someone is being painted in a certain light, does it necessarily mean that she's being portrayed falsely? Or could it also mean that the portrayal, no matter how true, is unbalanced, blowing one aspect of her life out of proportion and downplaying her other deeds particularly those that made her a CNN Hero in the first place? Take note that the title says "CNN Hero" and not Robin Lim, and Inquirer is associating this "CNN Hero" to alternative medicine. And that's what I think the author meant when she said that the CNN Hero is being painted in a dangerous light, because our less skeptical Filipino brethren might associate alternative medicine not only to this CNN Hero but to heroism itself.
Now if the second (broader) meaning of painting someone in a certain light is correct, then there is nothing wrong with the title.
Innerminds, happy new year to you too.
Firstly, the idiom 'to paint someone in a bad light (although the word "dangerous" was used instead) means to portray someone negatively, falsely, or to misrepresent some aspect of the one being portrayed. Considering that the person herself portrays herself (uh.. sorry for repeating the word 'herself') in such a manner, then ostensibly no one is being portrayed negatively, falsely, or is being misrepresented.
To overplay one aspect of someone at the expense of the rest for, say, ideological purposes, is different from "portraying someone in a bad light" insofar as that idiom goes and insofar as how it's conventionally used.
Ofcourse, that slab of words above assumes that what you say is even accurate –that some aspect of hers is being overplayed. Like I said, that's not the only article the PDI has written about her. And the article precludes any speculation of the merits of traditional medicine anyway. It's only the opinion of the author that an implicit approval of traditional medicine was given.
I don't see anything wrong with reporting the truth (O.K. with a couple of caveats) –whatever the consequences. If it's true that she was inspired by her Grandmother so much that she based a character in the novel she wrote about her, then that's the truth. It's something people will be interested in. It's something that will make people proud of their Filipino roots. Why suppress it?
I got the following from http://www.idiomquest.com/learn/idiom/paint-someo…
* * * * *
paint someone in a bad light – A biased opinion that portrays someone negatively.
Usage of “paint someone in a bad light”
1. The article painted him in a bad light. It completely ignored all of his charitable work.
* * * * *
From my understanding of the above, painting someone in a bad light does not necessarily mean portraying someone falsely, but only negatively, by not giving a complete, balanced picture.
Uh.. No, innerminds.
One can obviously paint someone in a bad light by overplaying an aspect about that someone and in the process making a negative implication about him (recall the definition that I gave you); If I call you an atheist –something you emphatically are– but imply you're immoral while doing so, then I'm painting you in a bad light.
That's much to different from what PDI is doing to Ms. Lim. What negative implication or misrepresentation of her are they making? None. Nobody is painting Ms. Lim in a bad light.
Before we talk about Lim, let's settle the idiom's definition first if you don't mind. When you said, "Uh.. No, innerminds," was that in response to this: "From my understanding of the above, painting someone in a bad light does not necessarily mean portraying someone falsely, but only negatively, by not giving a complete, balanced picture"?
Yes it was a response to your whole reply above.
I'll break it down for you:
If I overplay one aspect while leaving the others out, I'm not necessarily painting you in a bad light. For instance, if I say you're a naturalist, and therefore a moral relativist, I'm leaving out a whole lot of things about you, but I'm not painting you in a bad light.
If I overplay one aspect to imply something negative about you, then yes, I'm painting you in a bad light. I'm *misrepresenting you". I'm portraying you *negatively*. For instance, if I say you're an atheist, and the context of that statement was to imply that you're immoral, then I'm completely leaving out the fact that you rigorously try to ground your morality in something and so on.
In both situations, I'm overplaying an aspect about you. But only in the latter, it was done to misrepresent you or portray you falsely. So *only* in the latter sense can I be said to be "painting you in a bad light".
I agree to your above reply. For more clarification, if I rephrase my statement, would you agree to it?
Original statement: "Painting someone in a bad light does not necessarily mean portraying someone falsely, but only negatively, by not giving a complete, balanced picture."
Revised statement: "Painting someone in a bad light does not necessarily mean giving out false statements, but is about misrepresenting the person by giving a false overall impression whether explicitly or subtly/suggestively – even if all the details are accurate."
Yeah I can agree to your revised statement. I, however, will argue, as I always have, that PDI, in this case, isn't in any way guilty of that. Also, to paint someone in a bad light is to act, more or less, *knowingly* of what one's doing and committing oneself to. For instance, if I say you're an atheist but don't imply you're immoral, yet that nevertheless is what my audience infer from the statement, then I'm not painting you in a bad light. You get the picture.
Are you saying that painting someone in a bad light means deliberately portraying her negatively, so when an innocent writer unwittingly creates a false impression to his readers, he is not actually painting someone in a bad light?
If the false impression he created is the one he wanted to create but was ignorant of some circumstance by which it can be logically interpreted, then he is painting someone in a bad light. He's aware of the impression he was creating but unaware of certain consequences. Or he could be aware of the impression he was creating, and himself under the impression that it reflected truth. Either way he is aware of the impression he's creating.
If the false impression he created wasn't the impression he wanted to create but was nevertheless interpreted that way, then he is not painting someone in a bad light. People are interestingly able to read into anything what they want.
Notice how pedantic we are now getting. =)
So you're saying that it all boils down to intent, that painting someone in a certain light means the author or the article deliberately tries to create a false impression on a person. But what if the false impression he created wasn't the impression he wanted to create but was nevertheless the logical interpretation (for the sake of argument let's say the author is simply naive) arrived at by the majority of his readers, can we not say that his article painted someone in a certain light?
I don't mind playing pendant with you. I get to learn something. 🙂
Well, it doesn't "boil down to intent" inasmuch as it also boils down to other things. Intent is not the key thing, if you will. But it nevertheless is essential for the accusation to stick and be within reason.
If he didn't intend to create an impression but it's the *logical* impression one would take, then I guess a persuasive argument can be made that he *inadvertently* painted the subject in a bad light. But, again, a persuasive argument can be made that he was being misinterpreted. Unless, maybe, if it is the case that the false impression created would be, under all circumstances, inescapable.
Now obviously, that's not the case here. Because that's exactly the light by which Ms. Lim paints herself.
If I said you're an atheist, and therefore were immoral, and this is something you previously agreed for me to say, then I'm not portraying you negatively or misrepresenting you by your own account.
So you're saying there's no misrepresentation here because that's exactly how Robin Lim wants herself to be represented, hence, she is not being painted in a dangerous light.
But here's where it gets complicated. We are not just talking about Robin Lim the person, but Robin Lim the CNN hero, and her heroism has nothing to do with alternative medicine or her advocacy of it. No matter how much Lim wants to be known – to be painted – primarily as a champion of alternative medicine, that's simply not what made her a CNN hero, and that's where I think the misrepresentation lies.
Here are some excerpts from the Inquirer article:
"Filipino nominee to CNN Heroes inspired by traditional healing"
Look how the title itself tries to associate "CNN Heroes" with traditional healing.
"Her grandmother inspired Lim to pursue traditional healing practices and become a midwife in a small village in Nyuh Kuning in Bali, Indonesia.
Her service to Balinese mothers, through the Yayasan Bumi Sehat (Healthy Mother Earth Foundation) that she established in 2003, led to her nomination to the CNN Heroes of 2011."
Those are two consecutive paragraphs that seemlessly link traditional healing to her nomination to the CNN heroes. There's more:
"A CNN story posted on its Heroes’ Web page said Lim’s foundation wanted to address the problems of poor mothers in Indonesia who could not afford prenatal services and could not even take their babies home until they could settle their hospital bills.
The foundation, through the help of donors, established a clinic and a birthing facility that provide free prenatal care, birth and other health services.
Lim said she wanted to advocate traditional healthcare that is affordable and accessible to people, especially the poor."
Again, those are three consecutive paragraphs. See how the last one, which talks about Lim's advocacy of traditional healthcare, smoothly blends with the first two?
If this is not a misrepresentation of our country's very own CNN hero – a painting of this hero in a dangerous light (for the purpose of this discussion let's set aside any possible disagreement on whether alternative medicine is really dangerous and just assume that it is), then I don't know what is.
Innerminds, what you're saying, essentially, is that "traditional medicine" is being misrepresented (as being reliable, I suppose).
I can agree to that.
Problem is, that's not what the author is implying from the title.
I did not say that traditional medicine is being misrepresented as being reliable. What I’m saying is that Inquirer paints Robin Lim’s heroism as the fruit of her lifelong advocacy of traditional medicine.
And I think the title implies just that: “Of Heroes and Hoaxes: Painting a CNN Hero in a Dangerous Light” can be taken to imply that an advocate of a hoax who happens to become a hero for entirely different reasons is being painted in a dangerous light by associating her heroism with the hoax.
You’ve already agreed to the following statement: “Painting someone in a bad light does not necessarily mean giving out false statements, but is about misrepresenting the person by giving a false overall impression whether explicitly or subtly/suggestively – even if all the details are accurate.”
Here the Inquirer presents accurate details in Robin Lim’s life particularly her advocacy of traditional healthcare, but gives a false impression that her advocacy of traditional healing has a lot to do with her becoming a CNN hero.
If they are "associating her heroism with the hoax" –if that were even true, coz it seems to be your opinion– then whose reputation are they inflating, Ms. Lim, or Traditional medicine?
It seems to me, her heroism has a lot to do with the "hoax" who is her grandmother, because that's what she says inspired her –to what extent we can only speculate. So nothing about Ms. Lim is being portrayed falsely. Therefore, a better reading of what you said will have to mean that it's traditional medicine they're painting in a bad light.
Maybe we should wrap this up. You've always been open to being wrong –that's what I admire about you. But here I'm not going to persuade you. I don't seek to.
They are inflating the reputation of traditional medicine – and doing a disservice to Lim's reputation as a CNN hero.
I don't think the hoax the author is talking about is Lim's grandmother, but alternative medicine, which she literally called "a load of bull." So the author doesn't accuse Inquirer of painting traditional medicine in a bad light – in fact, they're painting traditional medicine in a good light by associating it with the CNN hero. And in doing so, they've painted the CNN hero in a dangerous light.
I don't mind wrapping this up, though I don't mind continuing this discussion either. Thanks for admiring my openness to being wrong. I'm just being a freethinker who doesn't care about winning an argument as much as sticking to the rules of logic, no matter what conclusion that leads us to. 🙂