Let me introduce you to scoop.co.nz. It “is New Zealand’s leading news resource for news-makers and the people that influence the news…. it brings together the information that is creating the news as it is released to the media, and is therefore a hub of intelligence for the professionals (not just media) that shape what we need.”
Let’s go on…
“Our audience are high-valued, professionals [good, now that I’m reading it] with a
social and environmental conscience [definitely] and also a discerning general readership seeking an alternative to other major news media.”
“Scoop’s Mission: freedom, expression, ideas, information, empowerment, transformation [can’t argue with that]. The Scoop.co.nz publication is a new media, born of the internet and populated by material of the internet. It delivers news in a totally new way – unprocessed and raw ‘from the horse’s mouth’.”
Now that part is good.
Those of you who know me, know that I try hard to resist the temptation to respond to any misinformed rant with respect to postpartum depression. After all, as much as we try to globalize our work and impact awareness to a widespread level, most of us realize there is a relatively small circle of dedicated professionals and consumers who work tirelessly to protect the welfare of women and families struck with illness after the birth of a baby.
It’s really not worth my time to defend the work that we do.
To any of you who inadvertently found yourself reading a piece called “Mother’s Act Fuels Multibillion Dollar Industry” by Evelyn Pringle, please be advised. Here’s the article’s opening tease line: “Motherhood has fallen prey to the psycho-pharmaceutical complex. If new legislation as the Mother’s Act becomes law, the drugging of infants through pregnant and nursing mothers will no doubt increase.“
Ms Pringle is an investigative reporter. She is very good at what she does. In this case, Ms Pringle continues to carve out her resistance to the Mother’s Act through numerous articles to support her effort to “expose corruption in government and corporate America.”
That’s good. That’s very good.
We need advocates like Ms Pringle to voice opposition and expose deceitful business.
We should be flattered to have received attention from an excellent writer who spends a great deal of her time seeking media-soaked and provocative avenues for her unique perspective and right to free speech.
But when it gets personal, it reveals the flaw in this particular effort of hers. I suspect that if Ms Pringle were to sit down with Katherine Stone, Susan Dowd-Stone or myself, she might actually understand this issue a bit better. If she could step down from her big Pharma platform for long enough to see the other side of this picture that is inundated with women in real life who are pleading for their lives, she might consider another angle to her protest.
Our job is not to convince Ms Pringle that she is sadly mistaken. Our job is to make sure we continue to take care of the women and their families who struggle and to educate clinicians, consumers, politicians and yes, “people that influence the news.”
Let’s not be distracted.
And let’s certainly hope that Ms Pringle never experiences the hardship of loving someone who suffers with a severe mental illness.