Evins 1

Sarah Evins

Dr. Dabovic

WRT 102

December 2nd, 2009

You Can’t Spell Antichrist without Hepatitis C

Springtime in Las Vegas is filled with many joys: the rock gardens hum back to

life, the scorpions chipper anew, and the pigeons make their majestic return to the glass-

bottle-lined gutters of Fremont Street. Yet, of all these vernal wonders, I appreciate none

quite so much as the annual media rat race as its quest for the most sordid, psychotic, and

sensational unfolds. My interest was first peaked when, much to my amusement, in April

of 2008, the media first heard word of the now infamous Dr. Desai endoscopy clinic

scandal. The bumbling Dr. Desai soon learned that reusing needles and vials in fact did

not save him money when his patients, now infected with Hepatitis C, sued him for over

$25,000 in punitive damages. Still, the moral implications of this saga go deeper. Until

that fateful spring, I paid little attention to the news. Yet something about the utter chaos

of this story attracted me. Tracing through the muddle of gossip mixed into supposedly

hard news, I soon discovered that beneath the news’ informative façade lay commercial

and unsavory motivations.

Before this bizarre chain of events, I had drawn a definitive line between

entertainment and news television. I assumed that because news editorials centered on

real situations, their word was completely objective. However, the whirlpool of slander

that progressed throughout the course of the scandal made it evident that, just like all

Evins 2

other television programs, the news was designed by entrepreneurs to entertain.

Consequently, though I in no way condone the immoral actions of Dr. Desai, I lament the

pandemonium that resulted because of egregious media interference. Even more

regretful was how easily objectivity was lost as soon as a salacious story came along to

disrupt the ascetic pre-election humdrum.

In this case, a sensational piece of gossip was able to masquerade as obscenely

important information and increase publicity and revenue for local news channels

everywhere. According to the news, Desai exposed some 100,000 people to Hepatitis C

because of his corrupt practices. Of course, that’s why only six patients actually

contracted the disease. Still, our trusted anchormen urged all citizens of the valley to get

tested, and the media ruckus grew. A mildly alarming outbreak of Hepatitis C became an

epidemic of Armageddon proportions—hundreds untested citizens roamed the valley,

further contaminating our streets. All that was really spreading like wildfire was hearsay

and melodrama. Solace could only be found in the supportive voice of the news. Spin-

off stories, like commentary on courtroom proceedings and identifying the symptoms of

Hepatitis C, only fed the publicity behemoth. All the while, channel three news’

shocking editorials segued immediately into commercials of sponsors like Glen Lerner,

the heavy-hitting malpractice lawyer who would “get you what you deserve.” News had

never been so entertaining, or so profitable.

But who could see the harm in heckling a corrupt doctor and warning the public

against a potentially dangerous outbreak of Hepatitis C while making a buck or two?

Until the problem started getting personal, I too remained in the dark about the

astounding ethical implications of a presumably objective source of information being

Evins 3

biased by commerce. Though it is easy to applaud the news' entrepreneurial endeavors,

few think about the consequences of this money trail. Indeed, amidst the mess of victims

and villains stood my father, a colleague of Desai and now unlucky activist for doctor’s

rights. With an already tenuous medical system, Las Vegas soon found its doctors

stressed by the resulting spike in malpractice insurance fees. All progress on tort reform

that my father's activist organizations had made were immediately stifled by the

resounding opposing public opinion that the news played a huge role in creating. Even

worse, it was as though all of Las Vegas had lost faith in the medical industry altogether.

Unnerving reactions like these are simply not acceptable. Now that

communications technology is expanding, the news exercises a precarious control over

public opinion that can only be checked by a liberal dose of skepticism. Had the effect of

the news not gotten so personal, I would in all likelihood still be susceptible to the

media's machinations. By forgoing critical thinking, I became unduly susceptible to the

dangerous allure of the news’s frenzied collective consciousness. The further in I got, the

more sycophantic I became. But such a fate is easily avoidable. Indeed, no harm could

come from simply asking questions.