The Washington Times has a series of articles on mental illness in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. The first article is here, the second is here; the third is yet to be published. In a similar vein, the Washington Post today has an article on one family's unemployment resulting from the current recession.
Published as "news" stories, both are dishonest,thinly-guised editorials in favor of more government-funded intervention.
The Times' series is striking for what does not appear (at least not yet) - any assessment of pre-Katrina mental illness. What was the state of mental health (both illness and treatment) in New Orleans pre-Katrina? Despite the bleakness of the article(s), my sense is that pre-Katrina, things were worse. Not from what was written, but from what was not written.
The Post article is somewhat more honest in that from the vignette, the reader can see that the wounds were self-inflicted. Not that that's any consolation to the family profiled.
Two questions arise.
First, are either of these news? Personally, I don't think so, but I'm open to differing opinion.
Second, and more important, should public policy be based on anecdote? This one I'm firm on - absolutely not. No policy is ever perfect; there are always consequences; and policy-makers must err on the side of the public good even when individual anecdotes are compelling ("Not Yours to Give").
No comments:
Post a Comment