Hugging Doctor Death
287120Before they made news, Mike Wallace and Dr. Jack Kevorkian made waves.
The image of the "60 Minutes" correspondent and "Dr. Death" embracing upon Kevorkian's release from prison Friday was beamed up on the web within minutes of its occurrence and spread like wildfire, immediately raising questions about credibility and objectivity – including inside this writer's head.
After all, isn't this the "cozying up" problem that pops up in concerns about embedded reporters and the White House Correspondents Dinner? Particularly in light of Mike Wallace's favorable quote about Kevorkian in a USA Today interview last year:
"He's a decent and compassionate man who tried to help people get out of the suffering of their lives," says Wallace, whose interview showed Kevorkian ending a patient's life. That piece was used as evidence that sent Kevorkian to jail. Prison officials have refused to allow Wallace to see Kevorkian; Wallace says Kevorkian's incarceration amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment."With both the image and this quote in mind, I spoke to the producer of the segment, Robert G. Anderson. Here's what he said about the hug: "They'd known each other for a long time and there's a mutual respect there. They're not friends in terms of exchanging mail or phone calls. They respect each other … You can interpret the hug any way you want. But what's important journalistically is whether Mike asked tough questions and did his job and asked the questions that people who disagree with Kevorkian would ask."
So I decided to go back, watch the segment and judge Wallace, as Anderson suggested, on the questions asked. Some were chummy to the teeth-gritting point ("What will you do to continue your crusade…" or "You're a happy man, aren't you …"), but more of them were relevant to the case at hand. Take for example this passage:
Wallace: You regret helping Tom Youk? [Youk is the man whose death prompted Kevorkian's jail sentence]
Kevorkian: No, why would I regret that? That's like asking a veterinarian, 'Do you regret helping that person's animal?'
Wallace: Wait a minute. Tom Youk was a man. And it was a compassionate murder, but you murdered him.
Kevorkian: But it was a man whose life didn't measure up anymore. You know, David Hume said it, 'No man ever threw away a life while it was worth keeping.'
Wallace: But you're the judge of whether it's worth keeping?
Kevorkian: No, the patient's the judge
When Kevorkian tried to make the comparison to putting an animal to sleep, Wallace pressed him appropriately. And then there was this exchange as well:
Wallace: Did making Tom Youk's death public, and the means by which, did that advance your cause or set it back?
Kevorkian: That's an iffy question. And I don't know if it advanced it more than it set it back.
There are other supporting examples, and I encourage readers to review the story for yourselves and see what you think. As far as this reader is concerned, while Wallace's interview with Kevorkian was more cozy than it was confrontational, he succeeded in getting the big questions asked.