For my writing portfolio. Eek. The prompt: "In a 3-4 paper, explore your personal experiences with the “hard news’” spread of pseudoscientific thinking (or fringe beliefs). Recall a specific instance or two, discuss and then consider the aftermath. How were you duped? What were the ramifications? What have you learned…you get the idea. For this paper, you can incorporate some citing and quotes from leading skeptics, but remember that you are not writing an analytical essay. The aim of this project is to write about your personal life experiences and make connections with the theme of the course. "

1. Sarah Evins Dr. Dabovic WRT 102 December 2nd, 2009 You Can’t Spell Antichrist without Hepatitis C Springtime in Las Vegas is filled with many joys: the rock gardens hum back to life, the scorpions chipper anew, and the pigeons make their majestic return to the glass-bottle-lined gutters of Fremont Street. Yet, of all these vernal wonders, I appreciate none quite so much as the annual media rat race as its quest for the most sordid, psychotic, and sensational unfolds. My interest was first peaked when, much to my amusement, in April of 2008, the media first heard word of the now infamous Dr. Desai endoscopy clinic scandal. The bumbling Dr. Desai soon learned that reusing needles and vials in fact did not save him money when his patients, now infected with Hepatitis C, sued him for over $25,000 in punitive damages. Still, the moral implications of this saga go deeper. Until that fateful spring, I paid little attention to the news. Yet something about the utter chaos of this story attracted me. Tracing through the muddle of gossip mixed into supposedly hard news, I soon discovered that beneath the news’ informative façade lay commercial and unsavory motivations. Before this bizarre chain of events, I had drawn a definitive line between entertainment and news television. I assumed that because news editorials centered on real situations, their word was completely objective. However, the whirlpool of slander that progressed throughout the course of the scandal made it evident that, just like all other television programs, the news was designed by entrepreneurs to entertain. Consequently, though I in no way condone the immoral actions of Dr. Desai, I lament the pandemonium that resulted because of egregious media interference. Moreover, I regret how easily objectivity was lost as soon as a salacious story came along to disrupt the ascetic pre-election humdrum. In this case, a sensational piece of gossip was able to masquerade as obscenely important information and increase publicity and revenue for local news channels everywhere. According to the news, Desai exposed some 100,000 people to Hepatitis C because of his corrupt practices. Of course, that’s why only six patients actually contracted the disease. Still, our trusted anchormen urged all citizens of the valley to get tested, and the media ruckus grew. A mildly alarming outbreak of Hepatitis C became an epidemic of Armageddon proportions—hundreds of untested citizens roamed the valley, further contaminating our streets. All that was really spreading like wildfire was hearsay and melodrama. Solace could only be found in the supportive voice of the news. Spin-off stories, like commentary on courtroom proceedings and identifying the symptoms of Hepatitis C, only fed the publicity behemoth. All the while, channel three news’ shocking editorials segued immediately into commercials of sponsors like Glen Lerner, the heavy-hitting malpractice lawyer who would “get you what you deserve.” News had never been so entertaining, or so profitable. But what harm is there in heckling a corrupt doctor and warning the public against a potentially dangerous outbreak of Hepatitis C while making a buck or two? Until the problem affected me personally, I was completely unaware about the astounding ethical implications of a presumably objective source of information being biased by commerce. Though it is easy to applaud the news' entrepreneurial endeavors, few think about the consequences of this money trail. Indeed, amidst the mess of victims and villains stood my father, a colleague of Desai and now unlucky activist for doctor’s rights. With an already tenuous medical system, Las Vegas soon found its doctors stressed by the resulting spike in malpractice insurance fees. All progress on tort reform that my father's activist organizations had made were immediately stifled by the resounding opposing public opinion that the news played a huge role in creating. Even worse, it was as though all of Las Vegas had lost faith in the medical industry altogether. Unnerving reactions like these are simply not acceptable. Now that communications technology is expanding, the news exercises a precarious control over public opinion that can only be checked by a liberal dose of skepticism. Had the effect of the news not gotten so personal, I would still be subject to the manipulative media's machinations. By forgoing critical thinking, I became unduly susceptible to the dangerous allure of the news’s frenzied collective consciousness. The more steadfast my belief in the news was, more sycophantic I became. However, such a fate is easily avoidable. Indeed, imagine what great crises would be averted by simply asking questions.