OK, I admit it of some interest to the General Public that nonsmokers do sometimes keel over from lung cancer. People should know that I suppose. Still …
You get the impression that it is OK to feel bad about Dana Reeve’s horrid death because she was not a smoker? You see, it was not her fault! We can feel bad about her since she was innocent!
I suppose the same reasoning leads us to John Doe died of AIDS, but was not gay or a drug user, so it is OK to feel bad.
Jane Doe died of a heart attack, but was thin, so it was not her fault, you can mourn her passing.
Most deaths are a tragedy. All should treated in the press with a certain respect. It really is nobody’s business if a person smoked himself into an early grave.
That’s not the impression I’ve been getting in the media.
I think they keep mentioning the fact that she was a non-smoker is because the circumstances of her death were so bizarre.
Especialy since she only got diagnosed with it not too long ago.
What IS piss’n me off, is that some news casters are already reporting that she probably got the lung cancer through second hand smoke when she used to work as a lounge singer.
Imagine, for a moment, that the press reported the story as above, but never mentioned the fact that she wasn’t a smoker. Guess what conclusion the public is almost certainly likely to reach.
THAT’S why they mention the fact that she never smoked. Not that other silly thing you made up.
Well I know that attitude towards smokers is out there, but I haven’t really picked up that attitude from the media itself. The kicker was the figure that 20% of women with lung cancer never smoked.
It wasn’t that long ago that the revered Peter Jennings Of ABC news died quickly from lung cancer. The kicker there was that Peter Jennings resumed smoking on 9-11 after many years of having quit.
I have to go to work and so cannot keep screaming about this incoherently. And I do have to admit that it is of some interest to uninformed people that lung cancer can happen to everyone.
Still, I do get the impression that when a smoker dies it seems to be thought of a rough justice.
Because it’s anomolous. Don’t you find it interesting? Curious? Just like when Andy Kaufman, who was a non smoker, died of lung cancer. It bears mentioning.
I don’t like it either. It has the connotation that it’s somehow less tragic if the person was a smoker. A close relative of mine died of lung cancer, and guess what the first question everyone asks me when they find out?
But it speaks to the misunderstanding people have about causality in medical conditions. People have a hard time understanding the difference between “X increases the risk of Y” and “X causes Y”.
Matters in what respect? As a measure of the tragedy of her death? Absolutely not. As you say, the tragic nature (or, let’s be honest, lack thereof in some cases) of a person’s death has less to do with the nature of the death, but the nature of the life they led. However, as a point of interest, yes, it IS meaningful that she didn’t smoke. For better or worse, smoking and lung cancer are inextricably linked in the public consciousness, and the FIRST question people are going to ask when they hear that someone died of lung cancer is something like “Did she smoke?”
I don’t believe for a second that the media, however distasteful I normally find their actions, is trying to drum up sympathy for the death of this woman, but are instead just answering the inevitable question before it needs to be asked.
Whatever. It’s still rude and insensitive. Did she smoke? Why not ask if she worked in a coal mine or if she lived in LA or if she had a genetic predisposition to cancer?
you do work at being as asshole,don’t you?
yes, I read it, I even quoted it. I understand the word connotation, I disagreed with it’s use. the woman died. she died of a surprising cause, given the circumstances. the fucking fact of those circumstances do not fucking connotate anything. the circumstances simply are.
it is, indeed an oddity that a non smoker died of lung cancer.
but, if as you seem to admit that the point being that it;s worth noting that not all lung cancer is attributable to smoking, than how the fuck is that point to be made without mentioning that she didn’t fucking smoke? Hmmm?
Yes. I have to. Unlike you, it doesn’t come naturally to me.
That’s may be what you meant, but that’s NOT what you said. Whether you agree with his statement or not, the fact remains that many people DO feel that a person dying of lung cancer becasue they were a smoker IS somehow less of a tragedy than a person dying of the same disease who never smoked in their life.
odd. you seem to understand, on the one hand, the word connotation. however, the news story does not have fuck all to do with what ‘many people’ feel, hence my problem with the concept that the fucking news article (you remember, the fucking point of the op), does not connotate anyfucking thing about the relative tragedy of her (non smoker) death to lung cancer vs. any other (smoker) death to lung cancer, but merely reported it.
so, before you use the tired old “do you even read” comment, try asking when you don’t understand the point.
No shit, Sherlock. See my other posts in this thread. However, regardless of why the news media are reporting the fact that she didn’t smoke, clearly many people DO feel that doing so somehow renders her death more tragic in the eyes of the public. I can see his point. Why can’t you? Intent != connotation.
the op was about the fucking news story. remember?
hence my comment that it is fucking newsworthy, (as in worthy of being reported) that she didn’t smoke. regardless of 'many people’s feelings etc.
christ you’re being an ass. you seem to be yelling at me for making the same goddam point.
in short: it’s newsworthy that she didn’t smoke. that means that it makes fucking sense that the media reported that fact. the concept that some/ many/anyone may feel that her death is somehow more tragic ( vs. more surprising) because she was a non smoker has fuck all to do with the fact that it was a newsworthy piece of information. how in the fuck are we supposed to get the information out that not all lung cancers are due to smoking without reporting the non smoking status of newsworthy people who died of lung cancer?
You call this being yelled at? Nobody is THAT thin-skinned. Come off it. I can sure as hell be sarcastic, but I’m rarely ever just plain mean.
Look, I agree with your point, here. I only took exception to your mischaracterization of John Mace’s statement. You took the ball and ran with it. Again, my issue is only with that one statement you made, which I quoted. Focus, man!