The Daily Mail’s current top article is relying on its readers being pretty stupid and gullible: ‘Miracle mum brings premature baby son back to life with two hours of loving cuddles after doctors pronounce him dead‘.
Firstly, just because someone is pronounced dead, it does not follow that they are actually dead. People make mistakes and premature babies presumably have slightly underdeveloped lungs / heart so it may be harder to detect signs of life. So, what has probably occurred is a diagnostic mistake rather than a ‘miracle’.
Secondly, the ‘two hours’ detail is really misleading and is only included to imply that the child miraculously came back from the dead after two hours. The article repeats this utter rubbish:
[After being pronounced dead the baby] was then handed to his mother Kate so she and her partner David could grieve and say their goodbyes.
But after two hours of being spoken to, touched cuddled and held by his mother he miraculously began showing signs of life.
So, the article clearly states that the baby only ‘miraculously showing signs of life’ after two hours of cuddling. In truth, as the mother quoted in the article makes clear, it was just five minutes:
‘He wasn’t moving at all and we just started talking to him. We told him what his name was and that he had a sister.
‘We told him the things we wanted to do with him throughout his life.’
Jamie occasionally gasped for air, which doctors said was a reflex action.
She added: ‘After just five minutes I felt him move as if he were startled, then he started gasping more and more regularly.
‘I thought, “Oh my God, what’s going on?” A short time later he opened his eyes. It was a miracle.
‘I told my mum, who was there, that he was still alive. Then he held out his hand and grabbed my finger.
At no point does the mother, father, hospital or any other person claim that he was lifeless for two hours. The only mention of time is in the above quotation, and clearly states that after five minutes he was moving and gasping more frequently for air (he was gasping occasionally before this. The two hours is an invention to add some drama to a story that really doesn’t need it.
It all comes back to bad journalism; either the Mail invented the 2 hours to add drama, or they repeated it without question – not even realising that the article content clearly contradicts this bogus claim.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
4 Comments
They’ve changed it now and removed the “five minutes” claim from the mother’s quote. So they either edited the quote originally or are now omitting details so that they can make their “two hours” claim.
Just shows typical Daily Mail “journalists” and their laziness to check the facts.
If the kid was pronounced dead, that’s still a miracle that the kid isn’t dead. Medical professionals should not pronounce someone dead unless they know the person is dead. To say because someone is pronounced dead, doesn’t mean they are….. that is ridiculous. That is the point of pronouncing someone dead.
I try my utmost to avoid the Mail, but do find it astounding that they can be so flippant with the truth and their audience, insulting the latter with the assumption that they are too dim witted to spot the gross error.
But maybe they are using these ‘obvious’ errors to weed out readers with a brain.
One Trackback / Tweetback