Rudy's Prostate Palooza!

The best and worst of quality journalism is on display in the New York Times' coverage of Rudy Giuliani's repeated claim that his chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. was 82 percent, compared to the 44 percent it would have been "under socialized medicine" in England -- you know, the kind of commie docs that Hillary wants to force on us 9/11 manly-men.

Here are some words that, in a reality-based world, where reason rules, where science isn't merely a politicized pomo plaything, would apply to Rudy's 82 vs. 44 claim: falsehood, untruth, lie, deception, whopper, fiction, bamboozlement. (The same could be said of his "socialized medicine" fearmongering, but let's set that aside for now.)

The reason Giuliani's statement is a lie is that the five-year survival rate from prostate cancer in Britain is actually 74.4 percent.

Now here's how close the editors of the New York Times dare to come to saying that Rudy's wrong: "Giuliani's Oft-Cited Prostate Cancer Statistic Is in Dispute." You know, like Existence of Holocaust [Evolution, Elvis] Is in Dispute.

The reporter on the story, Julie Bosman, valiantly does everything she can within the he-said/she-said straitjacket of prestige journalism -- covering "both sides" of the story, but (I'm guessing) silently hoping that readers with an IQ higher than lichen will figure out what side of this "dispute" they should come down on.

She cites an authoritative source for the 74.4 percent: Britain's Office for National Statistics.

Then she notes that Giuliani's 44 percent comes from "a publication of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization." Presumably our dog-whistle ears are supposed to hear "conservative" as "partisan" rather than "cautious," and "research organization" not as "think tank," but as "Republican front."

But then a Giuliani spokesperson says the article appears "in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being." (Yeah, and I'm Marie of Rumania.)

But then the reporter notes that the Manhattan Institute journal article's author is an advisor to the Giuliani campaign. She quotes him admitting that his statistic was seven years old, "crude," and came from a report of the Commonwealth Fund, which she identifies as "a nonprofit group." And she quotes a Commonwealth Fund statement saying that its research had been misused: "Five-year survival rates cannot be calculated from incidence and mortality rates, as any good epidemiologist knows."

But then -- demonstrating the bizarre notion of "balance" that the Times has been mau-maued by Fox into exhibiting -- she quotes the Giuliani spokesperson's dismissal of the Commonwealth Fund's statement, "saying that the group had 'an ideological bias.'"

Which leaves us to decide for ourselves whether it's the "conservative research organization" or the "nonprofit group" that is a "highly respected think tank" or has "an ideological bias." Presumably, brainy Times readers, schooled in critical thinking, remembering to "consider the source," will be able to read between the lines and draw the correct conclusion.

This is the very best that the prestige mainstream media can do. "Cancer Statistic Is in Dispute" is the inevitable, pathetic ribbon that the Times wraps this package in. But it's sure not the way a New York tabloid might cover it, if it were inclined to give Hizzoner the razzing he deserves: "RUDY TO TRUTH: DROP DEAD." Or perhaps, more concisely: "RUDY FULL OF CRAP!"

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[splashy]

Wow! If the survival rate is that good here now, just think of how good it will be when all those people that can't get care because they CAN'T PAY will finally get treated properly!

Not to mention the other 18,000 a year that die needlessly because they can't pay for basic health care.
Universal health care, NOW!

Oh, and Guiliani is just being a Repub, which equals liar, cheat, scammer, conperson, and general scumbag these days.

[rboylern]

This is not the first untruth to come out of Rudy's yap. The man's a conniving liar.

[Bobzmcishl]

As a prostate cancer survivor (so far), I am greatly disturbed that Giuliani would use such misleading information about prostate cancer survival rates in different countries. This is yet another example of a Republican party presidential candidate using fear to scare American's into voting against their own well being. Luckily in today's blogoshphere, such blatant misrepresentation won't go unchecked, even if the media gives Rudy a pass.

[Dansden]

RUDEy has the integrity of Vampire,
to use a seasonal reference,
BECAUSE he is so used to 'SUCKING' on 9/11 'blood' and using it for his OWN ADVANTAGE.....

MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT 'SEE' HIS MANIACAL AND SELF-SERVING REASONS FOR RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ...OR....

it could be that HE CANNOT SEE HIS OWN CONSCIENCE
WHEN HE LOOKS INTO A 'MIRROR'.....

[biglover]

Excuse me while I commit plagiarism here:
"Giuliani is “genuinely not qualified to be president” “there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.”

[Grit]

How do you tell when a Repuglican politician is lying? words are coming out of his mouth. How do you tell a true republican? He is listening to the republican politician and believes it all. After all, true republicans base their politics on faith.

[jwod]

As a temporary survivor of prostate cancer (4.5 years), receiving all of my treatment in major metropolitan California, there's prostate cancer and there's prostate cancer. It's not all the same. Survival depends on when detected, and the aggressiveness of the cancer. With some, nothing is done but watchful waiting, and the patient probably dies of something else. With others, like me, regardless of treatment, 95% die within 15 years. Does that make me British? Rudy is a know nothing on speed - but, sad to say, isn't that what Americans want?

[ranchobob]

What we need to worry about is the people who will believe Rudy Un-true-dy. Those that believed/believe Bush.
Those that think we are safer today.
Those that favor capital punishment, oppose a woman's right to choose, and oppose sex education.
Those that parrot Limbaugh, who has private meetings with Cheney.
Becuse they are out there in their festering millions and have a hair trigger sense of indignation - and they have been trained like lab rats since 1992 to hate the Clintons and vehemently oppose anyhting that loses 1 cent of profit for the corporations whose livestock we are becoming.
Many of them still resent the civil rights era,
think Jews are useful for the "end of days" scenario but otherwise despise them (they killed our lord!), think there should be an ammendment against flag burning and we should pray in court, and in school, right after the kids are forced to say the pledge of allegiance, just before the creation lessons in science class.
Be afraid. Be very AFRAID as you watch Rudy stroke them.

[Flynnstone73]

Right on Ranchobob you hit the nail on the head. I know it's getting old but If that man is elected president I'm moving to Canada. But then again that may not be far enough.

[Badenia]

Senator Clinton's healthcare plan isn't socialized healthcare and it isn't based on UK or Canadian models! It resembles the German system. Employees (covered on the first day of work) pick an insurance company (BEK, DAK, AOK etc.), premium is based on income and shared by employer and employee. This means employers don't have to buy into a plan. Government oversees rates. Dental coverage is much more generous and children don't die of abscessed teeth like the case in Maryland.
I changed jobs 4 month ago and missed one COBRA payment due to lack of funds. I'm punished serverely and won't have coverage for anything I have been seen at a doctors office within the last year (kidney tumor...). Not even in Canada one has to wait that long to get treatment....
We all insure our cars, homes, lives, why not health? What is bad about healthcare for everybody. Is this nation really so callous and blind to see the benefits of healthcare for all.

[Ironfox]

For the umphteenth time, in Canada there is NO waiting time for essential services. Sometimes there is for elective surgery. The waiting times that do exist are a result of deliberate government underfunding (we have lobbyists here too)to discredit the system and reintroduce partial privatization - read insurance industry.

[TheBlues]

My stomach is already churning and he hasn't been nominated yet. Another lying repugnant. Giuliani makes me sick. Ex-patriate time. God help America!

[wrabbitt]

it's a good thing the people can afford good health care for our elected royalty. maybe someday they will return the favor? if he had the same insurance i have he would have been convicted of pre-existing condition and died by now....

[PresidentLindsay]

What's worse is that when the Ghouliani campaign admitted this was a lie, they were asked if then they would quit running the ad. Oh, no, they replied. Of course not. They know that Republicans can lie with impunity and that the MSM will let them get away with it. Happens every day. So the Ghouliani campaign is basically saying, "We intend to blatantly lie, knowing that we can get away with it and that we'll fool lots of stupid voters."

[Nutcase]

Rudy's use of statistics reminds me of one of the Alsop brothers reporting on (not from) China in the 1950s. He said that famine was so bad that the Chinese were getting only 500 calories a day.

Calculating the weight loss to be expected from such a diet, one reporter had the gall to headline a story that, according to Alsop, the Chinese had totally disappeared. Since the article was written several months after Alsop had written his, all Chinese would have wasted away by that time.

I have not trusted any statistics coming out of a conservative's mouth since then. That attitude has served me well for about 50 years now.

[rjcrane]

What is missing in this story is that Rudy still has a 20-25% chance of dying from this disease which increases the older he gets, so why is he a viable candidate for President? Isn't a candidate's health and risk of dying from a serious disease in office something voters need to consider? What is also missing from reporting is more mention of Fred Thompson's health problems. He has leukemia for god's sake even though it is in remission or so he claims. I doubt most voters even know he has this disease from the lack of reporting about it. So both of these candidates have serious health related time bombs that could go off at any time. Where is the media and why isn't it more of an issue? Could a Democrat even run for President as a cancer patient?

RJ Crane, editor
topplebush.com

[newsweek1945]

The fact that Giuliani is even a serious candidate for the White House after the bush debacles is proof that these people realize that you can tell the largely under-educated American public anything and get them to fall for it if you say it repeatedly and loudly enough. These poor fools will never learn!! They've been snookered again!!!

[LewisWalsh]

Having been through and discarded the evolutionary stage of empire, the Europeans have learned the lessons of sufficiency and balance in expending the national wealth. Social development in Europe has advanced beyond the lumbering US efforts, so that they make wiser choices with their resources.

The world population is 6.6 Billion with total Military Expenditures of 950 Billion or $143 per person. The US population is 300 million with total US Military Expenditures of 500 Billion or $1666 per person. Unfortunately, newsweek1945, a good part of the wasted US Billions could have been used to improve our fractured educational system. But then, there is no greater threat to the ruling elite than an educated electorate. It is really frightening that people who knowing tell such awful falsehoods can actually make to the White House. But then, a political process by 30 second sound bites, evasion and special interest money coupled with a predominantly under educated electorate is the worst of all worlds.

[janmB]

Its a wonder there is anyone even alive in Canada or England to hear the righties speak about Universal healthcare.
I haven't heard that Canada or England or any of the other countries wanting to adopt our healthcare system in lieu of their's. APparently they aren't that unhappy about it.
This CRISIS isn't about republicans like RUDY who can afford healthcare --its all about those of us who cannot. As usual to republicans its all about ME ME and ME

[malcolm37b]

There are a few people,in Canada, rich doctors and wannabe hospital owners, that would like a two tier system, wherein those with bucks can receive preferential treatment, for a price. It is pointed out to them with bucks that such is available, go south. Same advice to Doctors who want to earn millions and spend it on insurance and claim clerks salaries.

[BinBaldwin]

Nice Try Kaplan. But Rudy had Cancer in 2000. Over 7 years ago. Check the 10 year survival rates and Rudy is correct. Or more accurate that you are. Remember to look at year of Diagnosis.
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/

[TREDHEK]

Another point. You might want to start thinking about the NUMBER OF CASES OF PROSTATE CANCER

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/incidence/

In the USA you are MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY to get prostate cancer than in the UK