Why real journalists should be asking tough questions about Jett Travolta's death

When I first saw a news account citing Kawasaki disease as a possible cause of Jett Travolta's death, my journalism Spidey Sense started tingling like crazy.

You see, my son suffered from Kawasaki as a toddler. It was a painful, frightening ordeal, in which he suffered a high fever and his extremities swelled and peeled off loads of skin, keeping him from sleeping, going to the restroom or even taking a bath.

But our biggest problem was that the disease was so rare, doctors didn't know what it was when they saw it. When a young physician who knew the disease diagnosed it, and my son was given transfusions of blood products to combat it, our only worry was whether the virus had affected his heart.

So why was anyone hinting that Kawasaki might have caused the seizure that killed Jett?

The St. Petersburg Times has a great story today dissecting the rumors and facts about the 16-year-old, son of John Travolta and Kelly Preston, concluding that Jett may have died of the simplest reason: a seizure that came despite any medicine he was taking or treatment provided.

The story also suggests that a breathless press, rushing to find some explanation for the teen's sudden death, took past family statements about Jett's brush with Kawasaki and asthma and blew them up into misleading conclusions.

I sympathize with folks, like my pal and Times movie critic Steve Persall, who wish the full weight of tabloid and legitimate media could lay off a bit when something this awful happens to a celebrity.

But because the Travoltas are well-known Scientologists, and their religion does not believe in treatment for psychological disorders, there were, I think, legitimate questions for journalists to ask about whether this kid of famous parents got the medical help he needed. Believe me, if the kid's name was Jett Johnson from Ocala, with parents who belonged to a controversial religion that might affect his treatment, journalists would likely be asking the same questions. There just wouldn't be as many.

But this is the problem when celebrity and real news intersects; sometimes it's hard to figure out where the real journalism imperative lies.

As I've said before, the solution isn't for the press to turn away, but for responsible journalists to practice good journalism -- and shame the bottom feeders by proving there's more to the subject than titillating speculation.

(Photos: Rogers & Cowan publicity/AP)   

*

Comments

[Eric Deggans]

You are, indded painting with a broad brush, Bruce. And that's a problem.

Believe it or not, there are a great many responsible journalists, working in every medium, who spend a lot of time thinking about how to cover these issues and whether to cover them.

The real story at the heart of the Travolta case is the question of whether Jett's death was the result of actions by his parents that could have been prevented. Which leads to the other pressing questions: If his death was preventalbe, is the Travoltas' celebrity and the fact that he died outside the country making it easier for them to hide the truth? Or are authorities afraid of running afoul of the Church of Scientology?

I'm not saying that there is a definitive scandal here. I am saying that responsile journalists will find a way to report on these issues, which are important. Laws exist to keep parents from denying life-saving treatment to their children, and responsible journalists should e investigating to make sure all the public officials involved did their jobs and were not distracted by celebrity, money or power.

Which leads back to the originasl point of the post; just because some journalists are behaving irresponsibly in covering a story, does not mean responsible journalists shouldn't be reporting on the issue....

[Bruce Apar]

>>if the kid's name was Jett Johnson from Ocala, with parents who belonged to a controversial religion that might affect his treatment, journalists would likely be asking the same questions. <<

They would? Why? Are we defining down the "public's right to know" to what piques the curiosity of a particular journalist? Conversely, does a journalist's smelling a career-boosting story get rationalized into "the public's right to know"?

Yes, I'm using a broad brush here, but so do many journalists. The phrase "TV journalist" virtually is an oxymoron. With so many more relevant issues affecting quality of life on a local level that go unremarked in the media, it's taking the path of least resistance for a local paper to exploit our nation's shallow celebrity culture because the celebrity is a denizen of its coverage area. What about allocating fast diminishing reportorial resources to more mundane, endemic stories that inform and reflect neighborhood culture rather than celebrity culture?

We lost our son almost 6 years ago to post-surgical complications after his third open-heart procedure. He had a rare form of dwarfism. Is it anybody else's "right to know" the details of his care, and whether his death could have been prevented, regardless of my family's relative obscurity? What does being a celebrity have to do with it other than what amounts to a form of prurient interest on the part of the media as well as the public. They feed each other in a vicious cycle on stories like this one.

I don't see where, as a private citizen (who happens to be a community newspaper publisher), it is my business or my need to know whether the Travoltas did all within their power to provide proper healthcare to their afflicted son.

Rather than reflexively accepting it as an article of faith that such stories as Jett Travolta's death are fair game for second-guessing the responsible actions of parents, it would be encouraging to see more journalists question and debate what exactly is the point of promulgating this information ad nauseam.

But professional soul-searching of that sort is just not as much fun, is it?

[Bruce Apar]

>>if the kid's name was Jett Johnson from Ocala, with parents who belonged to a controversial religion that might affect his treatment, journalists would likely be asking the same questions. <<

They would? Why? Are we defining down the "public's right to know" to what piques the curiosity of a particular journalist? Conversely, does a journalist's smelling a career-boosting story get rationalized into "the public's right to know"?

Yes, I'm using a broad brush here, but so do many journalists. The phrase "TV journalist" virtually is an oxymoron. With so many more relevant issues affecting quality of life on a local level that go unremarked in the media, it's taking the path of least resistance for a local paper to exploit our nation's shallow celebrity culture because the celebrity is a denizen of its coverage area. What about allocating fast diminishing reportorial resources to more mundane, endemic stories that inform and reflect neighborhood culture rather than celebrity culture?

We lost our son almost 6 years ago to post-surgical complications after his third open-heart procedure. He had a rare form of dwarfism. Is it anybody else's "right to know" the details of his care, and whether his death could have been prevented, regardless of my family's relative obscurity? What does being a celebrity have to do with it other than what amounts to a form of prurient interest on the part of the media as well as the public. They feed each other in a vicious cycle on stories like this one.

I don't see where, as a private citizen (who happens to be a community newspaper publisher), it is my business or my need to know whether the Travoltas did all within their power to provide proper healthcare to their afflicted son.

Rather than reflexively accepting it as an article of faith that such stories as Jett Travolta's death are fair game for second-guessing the responsible actions of parents, it would be encouraging to see more journalists question and debate what exactly is the point of promulgating this information ad nauseam.

But professional soul-searching of that sort is just not as much fun, is it?

[Eric Deggans]

I think reflexive cynicism is boring and counterproductive.

There are plenty of journalists who are not practicing journalism in the way you have described. If you can't see that after looking through a copy of the st. pete times or the new york times or 60 minutes or Frontline or national public radio or Salon then you're just not trying.

It's easy to despair over the worst stuff out there. But there are still plenty of talented, aggressive journalists who are shooting much higher..

[Ron Gardner]

Journalism in this country is 90% dead and has been for several years. If there are any responsible journalists out there, they're so few and far between as to be totally irrelevant.

Television news is no different than television programming in general. It must appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of potential audience, to achieve the orgasmic ratings increases that are the executives' reason for living. Therefore, a real story about childhood diseases would not get past the morning "editorial" meeting in most local newsrooms because what people want to see is the movie star couple with tears in their eyes ... preferably real close up. The "audience" is not going to suddenly develop a strong interest in Kawasaki disease and demand more stories on that subject.

American media can be trusted to race each other, with total disregard for truth/fact, to get pictures of the movie star and his kid on the air solely for the purpose of bragging to each other about being "first" with "exclusive" video of the parents ... and you can bet your life they'll tease the "story" with lines that sound like they were written by 5th graders in a contest to see who could write the worst.

As Wenalway suggested in his/her post, today's reporters "think 15 seconds of thought about a 5-second sound bite can pass for analysis." There probably won't be an attempt to report anything meaningful, but you can bet there will be a royal battle to see who can get a picture of the movie star holding the container of his kid's ashes! Now that is modern tv "news" ... wishing for anything more is a waste of time.

I spent 32 years of my life in tv news. I retired in 2000 and the past eight years have been the happiest of my life.

[Anonymous]

Why did Travolta's publicist distribute an obviously Photoshopped picture, which you posted, that painted a stronger jawline on Jett?

http://gawker.com/5125778/john-travolta-grieving-and-deceiving

[Mike Rinder]

I thought I had butt cancer.

Turns out, it was just a stack of 100 dollar bills in my wallet.

Scientology cured me.

True story.

[David Mudkips]

Scientology's spokesperson, Tommy Davis, has been doing damage control on TV in the last couple of days vehemently denying that Scientology claims to diagnose or treat disease.

So, let's see what Scientology's glorious leader, L. Ron Hubbard had to say on that subject:

"Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase "It turns my blood to water."

- L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 15-G, 1953

"Arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalogue of illnesses goes away and stays away."

L. Ron Hubbard, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, 1987 Ed., p. 72

"Of all the ills of man which can be successfully processed by Scientology, arthritis ranks near the top. In skilled hands, this ailment, though misunderstood and dreaded in the past, already has begun to become history. Twenty-five hours of Scientology by an auditor who fairly understands how to process arthritis can be said to produce an invariable alleviation of the condition. Some cases, even severe ones, have responded in as little as two hours of processing, according to reports from auditors in the field."

- L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 1-G, 1952

It is absolutely moral and right to ask if the Travolta's Scientology beliefs had a part in Jett's unfortunate death.

There has been much confusion and speculation about Kawasaki disease and autism, but I think that is off the mark.

It's an undisputed fact that Jett was suffering from Grand Mal seizures. He was treated, with some success, with Depakote, an anti-seizure drug. Over time, this became less effective and his parents were worried about toxicity, so they stopped the Depakote.

Sounds fine up to that point. It's what DIDN'T happen next that bothers me. Why didn't they try any of the almost 30 other anti-seizure medications? Ones that aren't hepatoxic.

Why didn't they try a VNS stimulator -- the typical recourse when drugs fail to mitigate serious seizures?

Why on Earth would they treat him with Scientology's "purification rundown" (consisting of mega-doses of Niacin, vitamin B1, cooking oil, and six hour stretches in a sauna)? Instead of continuing with scientific, reality-based medicine?

People are asking these tough questions because it's not the first time Scientology's quackery has killed someone.

Read the story of Elli Perkins, who denied her schizophrenic son anti-psychotic medication (and, again, treated him instead with Scientology's purification rundown):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elli_Perkins

Read the story of Tory Christman, a 30 year Scientologist who was told she didn't need anti-seizure meds for her epilepsy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_christman

These are just two of many similar stories of Scientologists who have suffered due to this sort of quackery.

I feel sorry for Jett's parents and sister. I'm sure they loved Jett very, very much.

But my feelings of compassion also extend to Jett -- and that's why these questions are being raised.

[Wenalway]

Today's underperforming journalists HATE research. They think 15 seconds of thought about a 5-second sound bite can pass for analysis. Their angles for any health story are usually one of the following:

1) He/she was lying.

2) He/she was faking. He/she wasn't really sick because we live in modern times, and everything can be cured with a pill.

3) The U.S. health-care system is great. After all, everything can be cured with a pill.

4) Something went wrong, so someone MUST have done something wrong. (All specifics ignored.)

5) NO ONE has heard of the disease or disorder. It HAS to be a freak thing if there's no immediate cure for it. After all, the U.S. health-care system is great, and everything can be cured with a pill.

6) Should we write this at all? The local hospital might get offended.

7) That sounds hard. It would require research. Jump back to Steps 1 through 6!

[joe hillman]

yeah eric, on second thought you might be right. of course, if the father was just a commoner from ocala with little cash, unless someone really did some digging wouldn't it difficult to prove a guy's faith?

especially if it was a secretive/paranoid sect?

i guess one would have to wait on an autopsy.

[Lesley]

Eric, if media would do some actual research they could avoid to ask so many stupid questions. Honestly. Books, archives, specialists, sound familiar? A little "Journalism 101" could have prevented the humiliating questions that were thrown at the Travoltas in the past days - and with that the impression that a bunch of lunatic vultures descended on a grieving family.

[Eric Deggans]

dunno, Joe -- seems to me lots of journalists were interested when that mother almost killed her baby by cutting its formula with water...no celebs there, but national media interest ensued anyways...

[joe hillman]

>>> Believe me, if the kid's name was Jett Johnson from Ocala, with parents who belonged to a controversial religion which might affect his treatement, journalists would likely be asking the same questions. <<<

singular. a "journalist" might ask if it was some non-celebrity kid from ocala.

[DoctorDoom]

"tabloid and legitimate media"

Is there a difference?