 |
 |
Robin and All the Rest of Ya <smile> Yesterday (Sunday) when I initially read the Parade article I felt the author and/or the editors had sugar-coated what "life after Parkinson's" is REALLY like. However, after rereading the article once again it dawned on me that the author mentioned not only the "beneficial" points in his life (that frustrating ol sugar-coating at work....) with PD, but also had mentioned, kinda in passing, that while pre-PD he'd been in a high powered, highly respected job which he loved, he was no longer working due to the disease. The author sort of "excused" his loss of employment by commenting he now had time for other projects and hobbies, but added he can no longer participate in as many of those spheres as he used to because of PD-caused limitations. All in all, my rereading caused me to conclude that this was NOT a positive message about living with Parkinson's disease. Rather is was a sad message from a once-dynamic individual whose life, if not his attitude, has been severely impacted, and NOT in a positive way, by being the unwilling "host" of this devastating disease. It is my hope that the general public, in reading the Parade article will not only interpret the author's comments in the above manner, but will also read between the lines and note that life with PD AIN'T the bed of roses that the article tends to indicate it is. GAWD, I HATE this steeeeeeenkin' disease! It's TERRIBLE that we feel it's necessary to justify to the world how that Parkinson's is a horrifying nightmare to live with and that the newly diagnosed are not only younger than in past years, but are ALSO increasing rapidly. Barb Mallut [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Disease Foundation <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Parade Magazine >ListFriends: > >Rita Weeks' criticisms of the Parade piece are important and defensible. But >I would offer a respectful counter-opinion, as a long-time student of media >(and, I'm afraid, practitioner of PR). > >Different articles and different news media do different things. Parade is >basically a tabloid-style publication. It's not the Los Angeles Times, not >the McNeil Lehrer report, not the science desk at the AP. It is highly >unlikely that a piece in Parade--even one authored, as this one was, by a >genuine expert like Earl Ubell (heavily edited though it was)--will have much >to say to a person as informed and well educated as Ms. Weeks (or for that >matter anyone else on our wonderful Toronto ListServ). What is DOES do is >flash in front of LESS-well educated (and much more numerous!) readers the >simple message that "Parkinson's science and therapy is on the move" and >important things are being done. This in turn feeds into the political >process, giving people the sense that PD science is a "good" investment. And >this is kind of thing is invaluable to the Parkinson's community. > >Just my opinion. I would be interested in others ... > >robin elliott, executive director, parkinsons disease foundation >