I remember reading this story. I felt sad to think that someone who actually had the where-with-all to live an active life decided instead to lock himself away from the World. He must have been very lonely and unhappy. But, by the time I read his story he was gone. A dead person has no feelings. I was astonished to read how much money he actually had, and bewildered as to why he didn't sell that apartment before he destroyed it with filth and move some place where there was a chance for happiness. But, he really didn't care that I read it. It was too late. Why didn't someone come to his aid, and maybe publish his story before he died? Then, he might have found a reason to get out and live. Worrying about his "reputation" now, or his feelings, is just a waste of peoples' time.
In an article of that length, there should have been room for inclusion of the comments below, in anticipation of reader reactions -
The story’s writer and editor told me these questions were given serious consideration as the piece was being researched and written. Michael Luo, the project’s editor, told me that when Mr. Kleinfield discussed the story with Frank Bertone, who was George Bell’s best friend at the end of his life, as well as with the people named in his will, “they were without exception excited by the idea and thought George would get a kick out of it.” That was an important factor in deciding to pursue the idea, Mr. Luo said.
The story’s writer and editor told me these questions were given serious consideration as the piece was being researched and written. Michael Luo, the project’s editor, told me that when Mr. Kleinfield discussed the story with Frank Bertone, who was George Bell’s best friend at the end of his life, as well as with the people named in his will, “they were without exception excited by the idea and thought George would get a kick out of it.” That was an important factor in deciding to pursue the idea, Mr. Luo said.
1
I once attended a lecture where the speaker explained the difference between viewing an event from the standpoint - as he put it - of being in the "First person or being in the third person." --
He told us to imagine that we hear about an airplane crash where people are killed or injured...
Viewing it from the "third person" - we feel badly for all the people who were on the plane, as well as their families - and our hearts go out to them...
However - viewing from the "first person" - we imagine how we would feel if we had been on that plane - the fear and terror that we, ourselves would experience...and the effect it would have on our families -- even though we weren't there...
The people who take issue with the article about George Bell are probably experiencing the story in the first person - and in some way can imagine their lives ending up like Mr. Bell's -
What's interesting is that we have no ethical problems when it comes to delving into - and exposing - the most private and intimate details of a famous author, politician, actor, musician, financier, etc --
And the reason for that is -- few, if any of us have experienced (or can realistically imagine experiencing) what it's like to be a major personality of the rich and famous -- so there is a disconnect which somehow makes it okay to peer into their messy rooms -
But there are many people who can imagine - or have experienced - what it's like to be George Bell -- and that makes them very uncomfortable...
He told us to imagine that we hear about an airplane crash where people are killed or injured...
Viewing it from the "third person" - we feel badly for all the people who were on the plane, as well as their families - and our hearts go out to them...
However - viewing from the "first person" - we imagine how we would feel if we had been on that plane - the fear and terror that we, ourselves would experience...and the effect it would have on our families -- even though we weren't there...
The people who take issue with the article about George Bell are probably experiencing the story in the first person - and in some way can imagine their lives ending up like Mr. Bell's -
What's interesting is that we have no ethical problems when it comes to delving into - and exposing - the most private and intimate details of a famous author, politician, actor, musician, financier, etc --
And the reason for that is -- few, if any of us have experienced (or can realistically imagine experiencing) what it's like to be a major personality of the rich and famous -- so there is a disconnect which somehow makes it okay to peer into their messy rooms -
But there are many people who can imagine - or have experienced - what it's like to be George Bell -- and that makes them very uncomfortable...
I find Mr. Baquet's response to the ethical questions far too flippant. I read the story in full and found it moving and engrossing. But, there were aspects that I believe were unfairly invasive. Mr. Kleinfield's prose deftly took the reader inside Mr. Bell's firetrap apartment.
I could feel the clutter. However, the photos were unnecessary and crossed a line; taking advantage of the access the Times was granted to Mr. Bell's life. Whlle Mr. Bell's few friends may think he'd be okay with the story, would he really have wanted photos of his home splashed accross the paper? There is so much evidence in the story that he was embarrassed by his apartment, he never asked anyone in and deflected visitors.
It is one thing to describe a man's life, it is another to literally trash it.
I could feel the clutter. However, the photos were unnecessary and crossed a line; taking advantage of the access the Times was granted to Mr. Bell's life. Whlle Mr. Bell's few friends may think he'd be okay with the story, would he really have wanted photos of his home splashed accross the paper? There is so much evidence in the story that he was embarrassed by his apartment, he never asked anyone in and deflected visitors.
It is one thing to describe a man's life, it is another to literally trash it.
1
It seemed this article could have been just as compelling, and enlightening, by assigning Mr. Bell a pseudonym. I don't care if Mr. Bell's friends thought he would have "gotten a kick out of it"; that's a red herring. His friends' consent does not constitute his consent.
I also object to the sentimental implication of the article and many of the commenters here that nobody wants to be alone and that, because he died alone, Mr. Bell was, in some sense, a failure. A lot of people enjoy their own company and have little use for other people. That's completely fine, and looking at things a little differently, it may even be considered a measure of strength. The value of our lives is not measured in the number of people who surround our deathbeds.
I also object to the sentimental implication of the article and many of the commenters here that nobody wants to be alone and that, because he died alone, Mr. Bell was, in some sense, a failure. A lot of people enjoy their own company and have little use for other people. That's completely fine, and looking at things a little differently, it may even be considered a measure of strength. The value of our lives is not measured in the number of people who surround our deathbeds.
2
The story is fine with me. As far as I know, everyone, save the rarest few, dies alone.
1
The article published intimate details of a private person without his consent. Of course...he could not give consent, since he died before the article was released.
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times, notes "I don’t think the story had any true ethical issues". The ethical issues seem potentially significant - the right to privacy, even after death, is not as clearcut as Mr. Baquet suggests. The Times posted an op-ed editorial on this topic four years ago, and the author Ray Madoff, Professor of Law at Boston College of Law, noted states varied in how rights to privacy were protected after death. Professor Madoff concluded his article (website address below) with some interesting thoughts: "the law should provide a mechanism that allows people to opt out of marketing their identities after death. After all, sometimes the dead should be allowed to simply rest in peace."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28madoff.html?_r=2&sq=ray%...
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times, notes "I don’t think the story had any true ethical issues". The ethical issues seem potentially significant - the right to privacy, even after death, is not as clearcut as Mr. Baquet suggests. The Times posted an op-ed editorial on this topic four years ago, and the author Ray Madoff, Professor of Law at Boston College of Law, noted states varied in how rights to privacy were protected after death. Professor Madoff concluded his article (website address below) with some interesting thoughts: "the law should provide a mechanism that allows people to opt out of marketing their identities after death. After all, sometimes the dead should be allowed to simply rest in peace."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28madoff.html?_r=2&sq=ray%...
3
The article on George Bell inspired me to write a note to an older neighbor who is alone, mostly homebound, and (I suspect) often overlooked by the world at large. Her kindness and gratitude when I ran into her later was an absolute gift, and reminded me that even in a metropolis it is worth making an effort to reach out to those around us.
5
It was an excellent article on an interesting topic. I found myself pondering my own fate as I'm sure many other readers did as well. Although the underlying message that most people got was that he had lived a sad and lonely life, who is to say that Mr. Bell did not derive significant satisfaction from the way he lived, and even the way that he died? At least his last day was not spent surrounded by chaos, dreadful noises and plastic tubes sticking out of his body.
2
Thank you for this and the wonderful piece about George Bell.
2
It seemed to me that the writer went to great lengths to avoid his personal opinion as he documented not only what was known of a single man's death, but of the ensuing activity, and involvement of multiple dedicated public servants. It was top notch, unsentimental yet compelling journalism which allowed the reader to reflect on George Bell's life, private death and the public aftermath of that death.
Writers are ALWAYS intruding on someone - friends, family, strangers -- in short all the living and the dead. But while we have unlimited "revelations" via social media which serve no purpose, this piece lays open, to anyone interested, questions about isolation and invisibility in the midst of society, and to my mind, our conception of community.
We all have losses and face death. Mr. Bell's death, and his past life, is not unusual. Make of what you want from that.
Writers are ALWAYS intruding on someone - friends, family, strangers -- in short all the living and the dead. But while we have unlimited "revelations" via social media which serve no purpose, this piece lays open, to anyone interested, questions about isolation and invisibility in the midst of society, and to my mind, our conception of community.
We all have losses and face death. Mr. Bell's death, and his past life, is not unusual. Make of what you want from that.
I thought this story about George Bell was wonderful. Yes, he was a private person since he had no public persona on social media. That doesn't mean that conversely he didn't want anyone to know anything about him and his life. Being unconnected from others and living in some degree of chaos doesn't mean he wanted to live out his years in privacy. It just means that he was alone. Would he have liked pictures of his messy home published? Probably not. Since I didn't know the man, I can't say. I can say that learning about his life enriched mine. Like so many commenters, I too have known and do know several people like Mr. Bell. They all would appreciate the idea that they have value, that others find value in their lives, regardless of whether they had a public persona.
If you really want to live "off the grid" and prevent others from knowing the slightest thing about you, then take steps now to do just that. Cash out your accounts, sell your home/apt., live under an assumed name. Otherwise, it might be helpful to figure out what it is about this man's story that was so disturbing. I think that's a worthwhile question to ask yourself. I know I've thought about it a great deal lately.
If you really want to live "off the grid" and prevent others from knowing the slightest thing about you, then take steps now to do just that. Cash out your accounts, sell your home/apt., live under an assumed name. Otherwise, it might be helpful to figure out what it is about this man's story that was so disturbing. I think that's a worthwhile question to ask yourself. I know I've thought about it a great deal lately.
4
Perhaps just before publication, the NYT could have changed the names. Then the story would have been told, just as edifying, and just as moving, but with some layer of privacy provided the deceased. We do owe the deceased some measure of respect which cannot be waived by their acquaintances. Not a legal, but moral matter.
13
I'm also reminded of the work of archeologists who uncover graves thousands of years old and learn about humanity from examining the remains. Certainly those long dead individuals could not have imagined people a thousand years hence poking around in their bones, and yet our understanding of the human condition is almost certainly enhanced and enriched by what they learn from the intrusion. I think the Times has done the one thing we all hope we can do by ourselves, give meaning and purpose to our own lives.
4
.
.
I think N.R. Kleinfield handled the George Bell Appreciation piece with as much dignity and humanity as I would hope for. And for that matter, Ms. Sullivan has written her column in a similar spirit. (Note to the bean counters: This column was on my phone for 13 mins. Feel free to stop reading now.)
Anyway, this separate Comment is mainly directed at the suggestion that the Bell piece should not have been in NYT at all. I look at that from 2 angles.
First, I believe news outlets should keep us up-to-date on life among the great mass of our countrymen, whether through large-scale data or through one-by-one stories. Not the 1% and not only the poorest (like Dasani), but the vast middle. George Bell's story was worth telling -- and worth knowing. (Then again, I think every NYC child who goes to bed hungry is newsworthy.) Would he have approved of the details revealed, or of the writing style? I have no idea; but why aren't Commenters pointing out the slew of details Mr. Kleinfield kept out of print? I think he used discernment and tact, frankly.
My second angle is that many details of George Bell's life were already open to public view. There was a public kinship hearing, a newspaper ad, a guardian ad litem's report, an auction, a probate file. Someone examined his body, someone cleaned his apartment, someone fumigated. George Bell's life had already been sifted, part by part. At least the NYT team reassembled the pieces, into a narrative. George Bell deserved that.
.
I think N.R. Kleinfield handled the George Bell Appreciation piece with as much dignity and humanity as I would hope for. And for that matter, Ms. Sullivan has written her column in a similar spirit. (Note to the bean counters: This column was on my phone for 13 mins. Feel free to stop reading now.)
Anyway, this separate Comment is mainly directed at the suggestion that the Bell piece should not have been in NYT at all. I look at that from 2 angles.
First, I believe news outlets should keep us up-to-date on life among the great mass of our countrymen, whether through large-scale data or through one-by-one stories. Not the 1% and not only the poorest (like Dasani), but the vast middle. George Bell's story was worth telling -- and worth knowing. (Then again, I think every NYC child who goes to bed hungry is newsworthy.) Would he have approved of the details revealed, or of the writing style? I have no idea; but why aren't Commenters pointing out the slew of details Mr. Kleinfield kept out of print? I think he used discernment and tact, frankly.
My second angle is that many details of George Bell's life were already open to public view. There was a public kinship hearing, a newspaper ad, a guardian ad litem's report, an auction, a probate file. Someone examined his body, someone cleaned his apartment, someone fumigated. George Bell's life had already been sifted, part by part. At least the NYT team reassembled the pieces, into a narrative. George Bell deserved that.
6
I agree. I think perhaps people don't realize how public their lives really are, if they don't take specific steps to shield themselves from scrutiny. If you live alone and die alone and your apartment is dirty, when you're gone, people are going to come in and poke all through your dirty apartment - probably quite a few people are going to have to go through your things - your neighbor or landlord, the police, investigators, a cleaning service, a junk removal service, perhaps someone to remove or tend to any animals, repair or service people the landlord hires - and probably a bunch of others I'm not thinking of, including various gawkers. Literally, the public will come in, and there's whatever you left, for all to see, mess or not. That's not the Times's fault, the Times just shone a spotlight on this fact. Granted many more people have heard of this man now than would have had the Times not run the piece, but it's a matter of degree.
3
THE PIECE ON MR. GRORGE BELL . . .
...was quite moving and sensitively written. It, of course, occurs in a large metropolitan area where some persons have little or no contact with others ... and it became an important story which in this often anonymous city such sad events are far more likely to occur.
So, I praise both the author and the NYT for bringing to light something which happens all too frequently with my hope that some ameliorative efforts can be brought forth to help the many that no one knows exist.
We all die. But, to encounter death alone is a far greater and more awful situation.
...was quite moving and sensitively written. It, of course, occurs in a large metropolitan area where some persons have little or no contact with others ... and it became an important story which in this often anonymous city such sad events are far more likely to occur.
So, I praise both the author and the NYT for bringing to light something which happens all too frequently with my hope that some ameliorative efforts can be brought forth to help the many that no one knows exist.
We all die. But, to encounter death alone is a far greater and more awful situation.
4
Posthumous privacy is an expectation that is routinely violated by adult children writing about dead parents, among others. The owner of a confidence is its subject - the man, woman or child at its center. S/he alone decides what gets said. And after death, his or her estate makes the decision. And if the estate is not so authorized, then the confidence should also be treated as dead, unreachable and unusable. As a writer and intensive researcher, I sometimes stumble upon things that I would rather not have seen or known. Those things will not make it to manuscript, let alone to published work, even if it advances the story and even if it helps sell the book (s).
1
Posthumous privacy? is it rational to assume that there should there be any expectation of such a thing?
1
Posthumous privacy is, in truth, a courtesy and a societal norm.
Legally, there is no such thing. Dead people can't sue for defamation.
Or anything else.
The most we can and should expect and hope for in death is respect.
George did get a respectful view and review of his life and what happened after he died. But bless you for having such a kind point of view.
Legally, there is no such thing. Dead people can't sue for defamation.
Or anything else.
The most we can and should expect and hope for in death is respect.
George did get a respectful view and review of his life and what happened after he died. But bless you for having such a kind point of view.
Precisely how would the impact of this story have been lessened, had pseudonyms been used for the people involved (with the possible exception of the public servants who were doing their jobs)?
4
[[rella VA
Precisely how would the impact of this story have been lessened, had pseudonyms been used for the people involved (with the possible exception of the public servants who were doing their jobs)?]]
The story was about a very real man who lived a very real life.
If you change Bell's name, you have to change the names of his friends, otherwise it's a matter of hours before the internet cracks the truth wide open. And if you change the names of the friends you are implying that there was something wrong with Bell's life or something wrong with the friends.
At the end of the day, changing Bell's name wouldn't have changed the facts of his life…the hoarding especially. And I think it's the hoarding that embarrasses readers most.
Precisely how would the impact of this story have been lessened, had pseudonyms been used for the people involved (with the possible exception of the public servants who were doing their jobs)?]]
The story was about a very real man who lived a very real life.
If you change Bell's name, you have to change the names of his friends, otherwise it's a matter of hours before the internet cracks the truth wide open. And if you change the names of the friends you are implying that there was something wrong with Bell's life or something wrong with the friends.
At the end of the day, changing Bell's name wouldn't have changed the facts of his life…the hoarding especially. And I think it's the hoarding that embarrasses readers most.
S
S
Some seem to wonder if the piece on George Bell was worth writing, was worth publishing, or was any reader's business.
About 18 months after Shakespeare died, a woman died in childbirth. Six years later, her widower was convalescing from his own nearly-fatal illness. He made slow steady progress, giving him time to muse on life, death, an interrelated populace. Where he was convalescing, he could often hear bells pealing nearby -- for someone's death, illness, wedding, baptism, etc.; he never knew who they were. But he didn't fail to take their fates to heart. Here's what John Donne wrote (updated), which we may ponder when we hear of a stranger's illness or death:
"Perchance he for whom this Bell tolls, may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; And perchance I may think my self so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. ... who bends not his ear to any bell, which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell, which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No Man is an Island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a Clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a Promontory were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends, or of thine own were; Any Man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
S
Some seem to wonder if the piece on George Bell was worth writing, was worth publishing, or was any reader's business.
About 18 months after Shakespeare died, a woman died in childbirth. Six years later, her widower was convalescing from his own nearly-fatal illness. He made slow steady progress, giving him time to muse on life, death, an interrelated populace. Where he was convalescing, he could often hear bells pealing nearby -- for someone's death, illness, wedding, baptism, etc.; he never knew who they were. But he didn't fail to take their fates to heart. Here's what John Donne wrote (updated), which we may ponder when we hear of a stranger's illness or death:
"Perchance he for whom this Bell tolls, may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; And perchance I may think my self so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. ... who bends not his ear to any bell, which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell, which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No Man is an Island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a Clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a Promontory were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends, or of thine own were; Any Man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
20
Thank you for starting my morning with John Donne. We too often forget to touch the thinkers of the past while reading current news and pondering the future!
Although many lives are constantly documented through web-sharing services and although most of us leave a strong digital trail now, it does seem as if there are people desperately trying to build walls between themselves and the rest of the world. And many of these people (who often say strongly "I built it without any community help") are using their political voices to challenge what they call the "nanny state" programs such as visiting nurses, affordable child care, safety net support for families and supporting the aging seniors like Mr. Bell who seem to fall gradually into solitary lives when their mobility is impaired. Yes, some people are "hoarders", but some people are just too physically weak to remove trash; identifying the difference matters.
T am especially troubled by the attacks on journalists and the media as a whole which some comments to this Public Editor column include. This "kill the messenger" theme which comes up when the "media" exposes an unmet need, is a waste of energy that could be directed to problem solving. While some problems have no easy solutions, voices do need to be raised to question whether our communities are preventing or facilitating effective responses to unmet needs such as frail elderly who die and are not noticed for some time.
Although many lives are constantly documented through web-sharing services and although most of us leave a strong digital trail now, it does seem as if there are people desperately trying to build walls between themselves and the rest of the world. And many of these people (who often say strongly "I built it without any community help") are using their political voices to challenge what they call the "nanny state" programs such as visiting nurses, affordable child care, safety net support for families and supporting the aging seniors like Mr. Bell who seem to fall gradually into solitary lives when their mobility is impaired. Yes, some people are "hoarders", but some people are just too physically weak to remove trash; identifying the difference matters.
T am especially troubled by the attacks on journalists and the media as a whole which some comments to this Public Editor column include. This "kill the messenger" theme which comes up when the "media" exposes an unmet need, is a waste of energy that could be directed to problem solving. While some problems have no easy solutions, voices do need to be raised to question whether our communities are preventing or facilitating effective responses to unmet needs such as frail elderly who die and are not noticed for some time.
8
.
I'm glad someone appreciated it, Lynda!
There's a lot of truth in your last paragraph, about unmet needs, etc. In my long-held opinion, no one who travels around this country with eyes open can fail to be aware of the problems that are out there that individuals cannot solve alone. What's unfortunate is, seeing too much can be a real downer.
I'm glad someone appreciated it, Lynda!
There's a lot of truth in your last paragraph, about unmet needs, etc. In my long-held opinion, no one who travels around this country with eyes open can fail to be aware of the problems that are out there that individuals cannot solve alone. What's unfortunate is, seeing too much can be a real downer.
There is an interesting quotation bearing on the ethical concerns in today's obituary of Robert Neugeboren whose life was scarred by psychiatric interventions. His brother, a noted writer, was afraid to write his story for fear of invading his brother's privacy. But after 20 years he worked up the courage to ask if his brother would mind if he wrote such a book. Read his brother's response.
5
It was a well written piece. No doubt. I kept reading it knowing that Mr. Bell did not want his life to be revealed this way. You say "it doesn't hurt anyone and it's about a larger truth." Is it really? What if his relatives or friends read it how would they feel? I'm guilty here.
3
His friends thought the story a good idea.
5
I was flabbergasted to see a picture of my living room on the front page of the e-Times that day, in connection with someone named George Bell. Without being in spiritual communication with the gentleman, I feel he would share the general feeling of relief that American media would wait until you're dead before dumping you all over the sidewalk.
1
The Public Editor quotes Joan Didion on the opposite side of the statement that conscientious journalists “Protect people from themselves.” To Ms. Didion, “writers are always selling someone out.”
Janet Malcolm expressed views similar to those of Ms. Didion in her 1990 book, The Journalist and the Murderer. To Janet Malcolm, ”Every journalist . . . is a kind of confidence man.” The book was the lengthier follow up to a 1989 article by Ms. Malcolm in the New Yorker. Both the Malcolm New Yorker article and the book which followed were the subject of considerable debate and controversy. The eminent Fred Friendly reviewed the Malcolm book for the New York Times.
The questions raised by Joan Didion and Janet Malcolm can be more prominent at times, less so at other times. As the Public Editor’s column shows, the questions never go away.
Janet Malcolm expressed views similar to those of Ms. Didion in her 1990 book, The Journalist and the Murderer. To Janet Malcolm, ”Every journalist . . . is a kind of confidence man.” The book was the lengthier follow up to a 1989 article by Ms. Malcolm in the New Yorker. Both the Malcolm New Yorker article and the book which followed were the subject of considerable debate and controversy. The eminent Fred Friendly reviewed the Malcolm book for the New York Times.
The questions raised by Joan Didion and Janet Malcolm can be more prominent at times, less so at other times. As the Public Editor’s column shows, the questions never go away.
1
I remember reading the article, I thought it was long but fascinating. My comment was about the detailed research- we all knew more about George Bell than anyone he knew did. I had a couple uncles who lived solitary lives. I wish I knew more about them.
I'm trying to explain why I found his story so meaningful. Not sure I can. And I'm probably not alone. As private as he was I would hope George Bell could appreciate that hearing about his life could change someone's outlook or behavior for the better.
I'm trying to explain why I found his story so meaningful. Not sure I can. And I'm probably not alone. As private as he was I would hope George Bell could appreciate that hearing about his life could change someone's outlook or behavior for the better.
4
It was apparent on its face that the George Bell article was going to be invasive, so I skimmed it to determine what made Bell such a "public figure" that you could plausibly justify an intrusion into his life. I was horrified and outraged to realize that NO such justification existed (so I elected not to read the article further in order to minimize my participation in his exploitation). As far as I am concerned, the only "legal hurdle" you surmounted in telling the story was ensuring that there was no one in his life with standing to sue on his behalf. As for the argument that the story was newsworthy because it mapped out the process involved when a person dies alone in New York, that point could have been made in any number of ways without providing the excruciating details of any one person's life.
13
I didn't read it either, didn't even skim, for the reasons you give here. I still feel uncomfortable about it. I question whether this will have any effect on hoarding. That sad and tawdry image of his belongings strewn about the room haunt me still.
On the other hand, some of the comments commending the article raise interesting and compelling points. In other words, I don't really know what to think or make of this article, the effort of reporting it, and the space in the paper to run it.
On the other hand, some of the comments commending the article raise interesting and compelling points. In other words, I don't really know what to think or make of this article, the effort of reporting it, and the space in the paper to run it.
It wasn't about him as a public figure; it was more about the universal situation of 'ordinary people' sometimes slipping through the cracks. In my opinion, if the article had been better, that would have been more the focus, with backup from an individual's story (George's).
4
Slick voyeurism at George's great expense. Every sentence read: give me a Pulitzer! Look how gorgeously I'm writing about such a terrible, lonely end! Degrading. Awful. "Journalism."
13
I did think it had something of a 'grandiose' tone. Sort of: "Look at how much work I did to dig this out." That was my biggest objection. I thought it was a worthy topic and I have to admit assuming the ethical questions had been answered (as the article seems to suggest they were). But in the end, it was a bit overblown.
2
I wonder if you and I read the same article.
2
Kleinfield has been at the Times sine '77. He has a Pulitzer, two Polks and an RFK award.
I don't believe he writes with the attention seeking desperation that you think he does.
Have a nice day.
I don't believe he writes with the attention seeking desperation that you think he does.
Have a nice day.
3
I don't feel like this piece looks at all deep or hard, and it never addresses why the man's real name had to be given. Further, most all of us have already seen plenty of images of hoarders' quarters and so the depictions of his private space were not necessary when weighted against how much he sought to keep them private during his life. His actions then--arranging a screen so those making deliveries could not see into the rooms--day in and day out spoke for his wishes, but the Times totally ignores that, saying his friends can speak for him better apparently than he could himself.
I also find it very offensive that the author views this individual as a stand-in or poster child for those who die alone. How insensitive and disrespectful to lump thousands--or probably millions--of unique souls together into a narrow category like that and then examine one as a typical specimen. Because a lot of people read or clicked it on the article and some praised it and others felt moved by it does not make it right: Games in the Roman Coliseum were highly popular, too. A significant number of commenters were also deeply disturbed by the insensitivity and invasiveness of the piece, which could and should have been written to protect this man's privacy.
I also find it very offensive that the author views this individual as a stand-in or poster child for those who die alone. How insensitive and disrespectful to lump thousands--or probably millions--of unique souls together into a narrow category like that and then examine one as a typical specimen. Because a lot of people read or clicked it on the article and some praised it and others felt moved by it does not make it right: Games in the Roman Coliseum were highly popular, too. A significant number of commenters were also deeply disturbed by the insensitivity and invasiveness of the piece, which could and should have been written to protect this man's privacy.
11
I think the point was that although in a sense we all die alone, he should not have been allowed to slip into that situation.
In the past three years, I have lost four people. One died alone in his house. Another died alone, having outlived her entire family, in a nursing home. A third - the older brother of the first - died in a hoarding situation created by his disturbed housemate. A fourth - the cousin of the third - died in the same house as the first, and was dead literally for weeks before anyone found him.
I'm all for privacy - I'm rather solitary myself. But I see no 'dignity' in this form of 'privacy'. And frankly, the responses stridently defending this form of 'privacy' sicken. As I see it, telling the story of this man's life is what gave him the dignity, however posthumously, that his later years lacked. It said he mattered.
In the past three years, I have lost four people. One died alone in his house. Another died alone, having outlived her entire family, in a nursing home. A third - the older brother of the first - died in a hoarding situation created by his disturbed housemate. A fourth - the cousin of the third - died in the same house as the first, and was dead literally for weeks before anyone found him.
I'm all for privacy - I'm rather solitary myself. But I see no 'dignity' in this form of 'privacy'. And frankly, the responses stridently defending this form of 'privacy' sicken. As I see it, telling the story of this man's life is what gave him the dignity, however posthumously, that his later years lacked. It said he mattered.
9
Thank you ACW. I was not sure what I thought about this - but I think you've clarified it for me. It was not that the man's "privacy" was violated. That was a state of degradation, not a state of privacy. I think that people are not actually objecting that his privacy was violated. They are objecting to his dirty apartment being shown in the newspaper. I didn't see anyone objecting that details of a long-ago romance were reported, or various friendships, or guys he worked with or drank with, or his relationship with his parents, or what he did for a living, or exactly how much money he had. The objections are mainly about the pictures of the apartment.
But if his apartment had been immaculate, would anyone be upset that it was shown? I think people feel he would have been embarrassed had he known - but he didn't/doesn't know, and what the article is saying is that we should all be embarrassed that we let so many people live and die in those circumstances. If someone had known IN LIFE the state he was living in, hopefully someone could have helped him.
But if his apartment had been immaculate, would anyone be upset that it was shown? I think people feel he would have been embarrassed had he known - but he didn't/doesn't know, and what the article is saying is that we should all be embarrassed that we let so many people live and die in those circumstances. If someone had known IN LIFE the state he was living in, hopefully someone could have helped him.
2
I read the story. I looked at the pictures.
Then I was was ashamed of myself for invading George Bell's privacy. It felt ghoulish and voyeuristic.
Then I became annoyed with you for publishing it.
Oh well. You got your mouseclicks and finger taps. That's what counts.
Then I was was ashamed of myself for invading George Bell's privacy. It felt ghoulish and voyeuristic.
Then I became annoyed with you for publishing it.
Oh well. You got your mouseclicks and finger taps. That's what counts.
15
Strictly speaking, the dead cannot be slandered and have no expectation of "privacy." It is inordinately kind of the many commenters here to be thinking of what George Bell would want or not want, but it is actually, legally and journalistcally immaterial. If only Dean Baquet would have said so quite clearly or Ms. Sullivan would have reported as much.
2
True, law and ethics are not the same thing. But the fact that it is solidly settled at Anglo-American law that the deceased have no legal interest in their reputations (in sum, that you cannot defame the deceased) might well give pause to any suggestion that there is an ethical problem in recounting how George Bell died and how his body and property were thereafter handled. If the article is factually accurate, no journalistic ethics issues arise. It is a rational error to equate the interests of a living person with those of the deceased. You are manufacturing a supposed ethical problem out of whole cloth where there is none.
In the foregoing I necessarily except situations where a deceased's name is virtually a common law trade-mark. Thus the Martin Luther King, Jr Center can sue to limit the use of his name and image commercially. And if one
allege (falsely) that a certain painting is not a Picasso, we get into "slander of title" issues. Otherwise, let's continue to be exclusively concerned about the living and with Luke "let the dead bury the dead".
In the foregoing I necessarily except situations where a deceased's name is virtually a common law trade-mark. Thus the Martin Luther King, Jr Center can sue to limit the use of his name and image commercially. And if one
allege (falsely) that a certain painting is not a Picasso, we get into "slander of title" issues. Otherwise, let's continue to be exclusively concerned about the living and with Luke "let the dead bury the dead".
4
In Amsterdam, according to my cousin who lives there, a group of poets have for decades attended the burial of indigent people who often are without family. They dress up for the occasion and recite poetry at the graveside. Sometimes one of the poets will write specifically about the person who died. This is done without much fanfare or personal gain. Have been speaking with my fellow poets in New York to see if we can figure out some way for that to happen here also. So far no luck. Maybe someone or someones reading this can take the idea and run with it.
12
There's a similar story about practices like the ones you describe for South Koreans. Very nice.
4
Very good to know. Thanks
1
I was among the many who read this story (through a digital subscription) and was impressed at the time with the care and consideration given to the details of Mr. Bell's life as opposed to the details of how he died and the substance of the estate he left. Mr. Kleinfield has earned all the praise he has been given for his powerful essay about Mr. Bell.
I am grateful to Ms. Sullivan for illuminating the NYT process of approving this story. I agree with Mr. Baquet that the "larger truth" of telling Mr. Bell's story overcame other issues. And isn't that one of the important roles media should play in society, but often does not?
One reason too many people die alone and wait for their bodies to be discovered is the push within our society for privacy, for not becoming involved, for letting people experience the consequences of their decisions and their life choices without intervention. Those of us who follow the NYT columns dealing with end of life issues have benefited from the subjects of the essays and the comments from those whose decisions on behalf of impaired friends and relatives lead to introspection and often self-doubt.
Perhaps Mr. Bell's story will inspire more discussions about what life choices society can allow in the name of privacy; perhaps Mr. Bell did have the kind of death he wanted in the place he chose. It is the "Perhaps not" that is so haunting when we consider funding block nurse programs and senior outreach.
I am grateful to Ms. Sullivan for illuminating the NYT process of approving this story. I agree with Mr. Baquet that the "larger truth" of telling Mr. Bell's story overcame other issues. And isn't that one of the important roles media should play in society, but often does not?
One reason too many people die alone and wait for their bodies to be discovered is the push within our society for privacy, for not becoming involved, for letting people experience the consequences of their decisions and their life choices without intervention. Those of us who follow the NYT columns dealing with end of life issues have benefited from the subjects of the essays and the comments from those whose decisions on behalf of impaired friends and relatives lead to introspection and often self-doubt.
Perhaps Mr. Bell's story will inspire more discussions about what life choices society can allow in the name of privacy; perhaps Mr. Bell did have the kind of death he wanted in the place he chose. It is the "Perhaps not" that is so haunting when we consider funding block nurse programs and senior outreach.
18
.
Thanks for that, Lynda. Between you and dotconnector, a lot of what I may have written has been written already.
I'll still have 2 Comments to post, but I hope not to duplicate yours.
I don't know how Ms. Sullivan could have been clearer about the fact that we cannot know what George Bell would have wanted. The only thing less known is why any Commenter thinks they DO know what George Bell would have wanted. I note that he left a paper trail (accounts, a Will, correspondence from prior days). If he wished greater anonymity, he could have destroyed his documents and cashed out his accounts. But if someone dies alone, within smelling distance of someone's residence, they must know that someone will gain entry, thereby exposing their privacy to public view. Especially if they have assets, and if their car is parked illegally (which tends to draw police attention to the registered owner).
Thanks for that, Lynda. Between you and dotconnector, a lot of what I may have written has been written already.
I'll still have 2 Comments to post, but I hope not to duplicate yours.
I don't know how Ms. Sullivan could have been clearer about the fact that we cannot know what George Bell would have wanted. The only thing less known is why any Commenter thinks they DO know what George Bell would have wanted. I note that he left a paper trail (accounts, a Will, correspondence from prior days). If he wished greater anonymity, he could have destroyed his documents and cashed out his accounts. But if someone dies alone, within smelling distance of someone's residence, they must know that someone will gain entry, thereby exposing their privacy to public view. Especially if they have assets, and if their car is parked illegally (which tends to draw police attention to the registered owner).
3
GEORGE BELL His death may find a place in our national history of that of Kitty Genovese who, in 1964, was attacked near an apartment building, where she was heard by many people, without anyone leaving the building to try to protect her or to save her life. Her death was a failure of neighborly inaction at a time when people often lived in more closely-connected areas.
The opposite is true for George Bell, who died undetected until neighbors noticed his absence and ultimately, suspicious odors coming from his apartment.
The societal change that has occurred is that our culture is more alienating and isolating than it was in 1964. In that year, I was an immature 14, did not follow the news via TV or radio, nor read the paper regularly. I heard snippets about Kitty's death, but still saw myself as a minor--not to be engaged in adult concerns.
Fast forward over 50 years, to a time when everyone is hyper-connected via cellphone, ipad and computer 24/7. While we may know a great deal more about each others' lives because it's all out there in cyberspace forever, we take that as a substitute for being interconnected socially and emotionally. So in a sense, everything has changed, but nothing has changed.
Will George Bell's death and his story awaken a greater need in us to be more engaged with our neighbors? But the other day I read about the advantages of online medical consults, versus a visit at the doctor's office. At what point do we need to come together?
The opposite is true for George Bell, who died undetected until neighbors noticed his absence and ultimately, suspicious odors coming from his apartment.
The societal change that has occurred is that our culture is more alienating and isolating than it was in 1964. In that year, I was an immature 14, did not follow the news via TV or radio, nor read the paper regularly. I heard snippets about Kitty's death, but still saw myself as a minor--not to be engaged in adult concerns.
Fast forward over 50 years, to a time when everyone is hyper-connected via cellphone, ipad and computer 24/7. While we may know a great deal more about each others' lives because it's all out there in cyberspace forever, we take that as a substitute for being interconnected socially and emotionally. So in a sense, everything has changed, but nothing has changed.
Will George Bell's death and his story awaken a greater need in us to be more engaged with our neighbors? But the other day I read about the advantages of online medical consults, versus a visit at the doctor's office. At what point do we need to come together?
1
I understand that digital distribution and mobile apps are the future of journalism, but when spending 6 minutes on an 8,000 word story ( those who read it on their phones spent an average of six minutes on it — which, according to a newsroom memo, is “an eternity in mobile-land.”) is celebrated as an accomplishment ( It also was extraordinarily well-read) the definition of 'reading' has been dramatically changed. Perhaps "well-scanned" is a better description of the 'mobile-land' experience.
2
I agree. I don't think you could really read that in 6 minutes on a smartphone screen. The small portion of text on the screen would constantly need to be scrolled or paged. I think I'd find it maddening.
2
What I find particularly interesting is the way 'dying alone' is portrayed. As one of the most horrible things that can happen. Really? I wonder how much of that is pure projection. A person who lived alone and then died alone, possibly died with a modicum of comfort. Imagine an alternative like being in an impersonal hospital with blaring lights and no privacy and overworked nurses. An alien, uncaring environment can create a far more devastating loneliness!
9
I found all the ballyhooing about what a solitary man he was strange in light of the fact that he had several good friends who missed him and he socialized with frequently.
4
My dad was dead four days, before anyone thought to look for him. That "anyone" wasn't either friend or family. He was a work manager. My mom lived alone, blinds drawn, Windows closed, cigarette oil and smoke thickened the spider webs into yarn, cigarette oils turned beige walls yellow. I have not been outside in 11 months I believe I won't be again. This is mere comment. I would find it unethical to know any of us would be objects of a painfully probing "news" story.
I treasured the story of George Bell, but that's what it was, a public figure, has relinquished her privacy. and probing or lying made by the writer next to impossible to curtail. He told me, however, that if I wrote about a private person, I better be certain all my facts were exact. George Bell was not a public figure. He was among the fewest of public figures.
What was written was actually a fiction piece, because there was so much speculation, and of course, because the writer could neither question George Bell, nor get his permission for such intrusion. Shall we change his name and call it fiction? Yes. It was not news, and should never have been written as more. Facts only, no maybes.
It's a hauntingly beautiful story. It pushes too many rights of privacy to have been written as "Hear ye, hear ye" news. "Get the lowdown on the life of a real and dead recluse, George Bell." Wrong thing to do!
I treasured the story of George Bell, but that's what it was, a public figure, has relinquished her privacy. and probing or lying made by the writer next to impossible to curtail. He told me, however, that if I wrote about a private person, I better be certain all my facts were exact. George Bell was not a public figure. He was among the fewest of public figures.
What was written was actually a fiction piece, because there was so much speculation, and of course, because the writer could neither question George Bell, nor get his permission for such intrusion. Shall we change his name and call it fiction? Yes. It was not news, and should never have been written as more. Facts only, no maybes.
It's a hauntingly beautiful story. It pushes too many rights of privacy to have been written as "Hear ye, hear ye" news. "Get the lowdown on the life of a real and dead recluse, George Bell." Wrong thing to do!
George Bell's story was well written and important. Important because I suspect many of us know someone like George, a person we may see only in an infrequent get together at a bar. We need to find ways to pay closer attention to our friends.
1
This was one of the best articles i have read in your newspaper. I understand how it could make a person uncomfortable, because it dealt with issues that make us uneasy to think about. There are many invisible individuals that inhabit all of the cities we live in. People are ostracized and forgotten for any number of reasons. The very fact that this story made people uncomfortable is the very reason that it should have been written. Every life matters. Thank you.
3
The story was important but intrusive. A casual nod from a friend does not make everything ok. This man did not consent to having his very private and in some ways idiosyncratic life exposed for the perusal of the NYT readership. The Didion quote is true, apt, and perfect - Mr. Bell was sold out.
8
If Ms. Sullivan labels her position as "Complaint Central" then why not leave the position: it's her role as ombudsman to be an advocate for the reader, not someone who has the burden of handling customer complaints!
I think that's a fair characterization on her part. I know I've unloaded here before. She's not begrudging that fact. What the Times does need is someone who does a similar thing for the more 'nuts and bolts' issues that inevitably get dumped on Ms. Sullivan's doorstep now. Things like the comment system, the captions, auto-play videos, etc. that are not really about the practice of journalism or its ethics.
2
.
@ Matt Ng,
16 weeks, later, The Washington Post announced that she had accepted a position there.
She apparently took your advice. And now, readers have no representative.
@ Matt Ng,
16 weeks, later, The Washington Post announced that she had accepted a position there.
She apparently took your advice. And now, readers have no representative.
Re the Joan Didion comment. And then there’s Janet Malcolm’s 1990 book, The Journalist and the Murderer, with the view of Ms. Malcolm that ”Every journalist . . . is a kind of confidence man.”
Actually, we've been through this before:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30pubed.html
A man dies alone, the NYT writes a "sensitive" piece, the Public Editor investigates... and life goes on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30pubed.html
A man dies alone, the NYT writes a "sensitive" piece, the Public Editor investigates... and life goes on.
Oh, please tell me that someone else sees humor in an anthropologist feeling uneasy about someone digging around in a dead person's life.
Also, isn't there something a little spooky about claims that the privacy of a dead person can be "invaded"? Should the Times follow up with some ritualistic apology ceremony designed to communicate with the dead?
Also, isn't there something a little spooky about claims that the privacy of a dead person can be "invaded"? Should the Times follow up with some ritualistic apology ceremony designed to communicate with the dead?
3
N. R. Kleinfeld's story is almost incidentally about George Bell. The true subject of the story is the difficulty of tracing heirs and liquidating assets of a person who dies alone and forgotten. People die every day who had regular contact with close relatives, maintained neat homes, and kept their wills and other paperwork in order. If Mr. Bell had been one of them, and his survivors were quickly notified of his death and his estate settled without complications, there would have been no story--that's the whole point.
It's established journalistic law that you can't libel a dead person because the worst thing that happens to anyone is death, and libel is insignificant by comparison. It ought to be equally established law that invading the privacy of a dead person is an oxymoron.
It's established journalistic law that you can't libel a dead person because the worst thing that happens to anyone is death, and libel is insignificant by comparison. It ought to be equally established law that invading the privacy of a dead person is an oxymoron.
4
I began reading Ms. Sullivan's essay in the hope that it was an apology for the gross violation of Mr. Bell's privacy and dignity. I was disappointed to read--ans strongly disagree with--the conclusion. Despite speculations that Mr. Bell would not have minded the exposure, I challenge anyone among our readership to say that they would be entirely comfortable having the intimate details of their lives blasted on the front page of the most widely read newspaper for all the world to see--and before they even had a chance to clean house! It seems unlikely that the "positive impact" of the story would have been at all sacrificed by simply changing the man's name.
10
When I'm dead, I will not care what The New York Times writes about me or what anyone writes or says about me. I'll be dead! I won't know what's going on; I won't exist anymore. So I say, New York Times, after I'm gone, do your worst. I won't care.
4
Good. Then such a story about your death would be OK. You have given your approval, but Mr Bell did not.
4
I was one of those readers moved by the story. Until I read the adverse commentary, I hadn't even thought of that angle. In any case, thanks for these clarifications. I'd like to add my voice to the hope that this story wins a Pulitzer. Your team did a fine job.
3
“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” The Times story helped put flesh and skin on the skeleton of this Thoreau aphorism.
7
The considerations taken into account about disclosure, after a patient dies, of confidential information in a medical context include the impact on the reputation of the decedent. Was that taken into account with regard to the decision to breach the privacy of this deceased man?
I can accept that the rules of journalism and the probate permit what was done, and I hear the claims of readers who were moved by the piece that they will behave differently on account of the article, but I think the jury is out on whether what was done will increase compassionate interactions among the living or increase social tolerance for voyeurism instead.
I can accept that the rules of journalism and the probate permit what was done, and I hear the claims of readers who were moved by the piece that they will behave differently on account of the article, but I think the jury is out on whether what was done will increase compassionate interactions among the living or increase social tolerance for voyeurism instead.
13
I loved the story of George Bell. Having worked as a hospice nurse, you meet these types of people often. His story could be your neighbor's story. I hope it gets people to think more about others and reach out more.
You may have thought he wanted to be alone and private, but you would probably be wrong.
You may have thought he wanted to be alone and private, but you would probably be wrong.
45
I'm one of the three million people who read the article. I also shared it with friends and on social media, and commented on it on the Times' online site.
It was one of the finest examples of journalism I have read in years. And I think George Bell would have approved of Kleinfield's treatment of his life, and of his loneliness.
It was one of the finest examples of journalism I have read in years. And I think George Bell would have approved of Kleinfield's treatment of his life, and of his loneliness.
32
Recently I attended the funeral of my closest friend - by which I mean emotionally, rather than physically, close. He lived five hours away, and my car wouldn't make the trip, so he always came to see me. Only after the funeral, going to his house to adopt his cat so she didn't get dumped in a shelter, did I see the squalid hoarding conditions in which his housemate had him living for the past few years. (The smell alone could floor you.) I truly believe it hastened his death. Had I known ... but he didn't let on. Ironically, he was also renting his parents' house, which he inherited, to an elderly cousin who stayed there alone. After my friend's death no one answered the phone at the other house; when cops got in, they found him - dead for weeks.
A year and a half ago my closest friend from childhood died alone in a shabby nursing home, also two states away, from MS. I found out about her death by googling her; no one bothered to tell me when she was transferred from one facility to another.
Needless to say I was deeply affected by George Bell's story, and terrified that the same story might well someday be written of me.
Intrusive? Someone should perhaps have 'intruded' a bit more on Mr Bell's life. I thought the article was an acknowledgement that this man lived, that he mattered, that he passed through the world. 'Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.'
Damn, now I'm crying all over again.
A year and a half ago my closest friend from childhood died alone in a shabby nursing home, also two states away, from MS. I found out about her death by googling her; no one bothered to tell me when she was transferred from one facility to another.
Needless to say I was deeply affected by George Bell's story, and terrified that the same story might well someday be written of me.
Intrusive? Someone should perhaps have 'intruded' a bit more on Mr Bell's life. I thought the article was an acknowledgement that this man lived, that he mattered, that he passed through the world. 'Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.'
Damn, now I'm crying all over again.
91
While I thought the article was well written, I thought it was filled with ethical pratfalls. No one but George knew what he would have wanted. Therefore his privacy should have been protected. It wasn't.
19
Absolutely smack on! And with amazing brevity!
2
I'm curious as to what constitutes 'read' in that 3 million number? Does just clicking on it count? I did read the story (in the hardcopy paper, because reading that kind of story online is painful, with the scrolling etc.). But I have bailed on stories online, because as I've mentioned before, the format is very hard to read online sometimes (the story about the avalanche being the worst one for me).
I thought the story was interesting and I naively assumed all the vetting for permissions and privacy had been done to allow it to be printed; I did find it overly detailed. There were things in it that added little to my understanding of this man's life and his last years. I don't often have the extra 15-20 minutes to read a long story like that in the paper, as I read the whole paper every day.
I thought the story was interesting and I naively assumed all the vetting for permissions and privacy had been done to allow it to be printed; I did find it overly detailed. There were things in it that added little to my understanding of this man's life and his last years. I don't often have the extra 15-20 minutes to read a long story like that in the paper, as I read the whole paper every day.
5
Yet another example of why Ms. Sullivan is the best public editor The Times has ever had and arguably the finest ombudsman/woman in this longtime reader's memory anywhere.
She thoughtfully tackles a complex, nuanced subject with sensitivity, thoroughness and eminent fairness. And it carries her unmistakable trademark: integrity.
What's most satisfying about her journal or column on any given day is that a reader, regardless of viewpoint on any journalistic or ethical issue, always ends up smarter.
She thoughtfully tackles a complex, nuanced subject with sensitivity, thoroughness and eminent fairness. And it carries her unmistakable trademark: integrity.
What's most satisfying about her journal or column on any given day is that a reader, regardless of viewpoint on any journalistic or ethical issue, always ends up smarter.
62
Gee, would be interesting to see any criticism of the Public Editior's work get through the moderators.
!
Let's see ...
Paragraph 1 -- Agreed.
Paragraph 2 -- I concur.
Paragraph 3 -- Can't agree there. But I made a crucial mistake: I didn't pace myself. I read them all. Sometime around the "Invisible Child" commentary, my brain maxed out. I've reached capacity. The rest of you go on ahead. (Besides, sometimes when I read the unfiltered quotes from Times editors she turns to for answers, I think I actually get a bit less smart. I guess you could say, I can't imagine that I don't get less smart after reading them. I won't say why that is, because I have strict separation of fact and opinion.) (And, when I read about the stringer who asked an interviewee -- over the phone -- if the interviewee "looks Jewish"? I definitely got stupider, just by being made aware that a human being had done that.)
Let's see ...
Paragraph 1 -- Agreed.
Paragraph 2 -- I concur.
Paragraph 3 -- Can't agree there. But I made a crucial mistake: I didn't pace myself. I read them all. Sometime around the "Invisible Child" commentary, my brain maxed out. I've reached capacity. The rest of you go on ahead. (Besides, sometimes when I read the unfiltered quotes from Times editors she turns to for answers, I think I actually get a bit less smart. I guess you could say, I can't imagine that I don't get less smart after reading them. I won't say why that is, because I have strict separation of fact and opinion.) (And, when I read about the stringer who asked an interviewee -- over the phone -- if the interviewee "looks Jewish"? I definitely got stupider, just by being made aware that a human being had done that.)
1
MTF Tobin, you crack me up.
1
I was one of those millions who read the story and shared it with others. I happened to enjoy reading Mr. Kleinfield and that's what led me to read the story.
As you say, whether or not Mr. Bell would have approved of the coverage is something we'll never know, but I hope the story would encourage people to periodically check in on their friends and relatives who live alone.
As you say, whether or not Mr. Bell would have approved of the coverage is something we'll never know, but I hope the story would encourage people to periodically check in on their friends and relatives who live alone.
27
I thought the article was great. One never sees an article about the end of life of a normal person, like Mr. Bell, in such detail. An it has made me think about the meaning and importance of life. I feel that the article was sensitive and portrayed Mr. Bell in a positive light--and he did manage to leave a sizable inheritance. I think the effect on readers of this article would tend to be positive, and it is meaningless to speculate and worry what Mr. Bell would think, were he still around.
25
I was troubled by opening wide the life of such a private man. I suppose asking those who knew him best was as close to proper consent as was possible.
That said, the story was one of the best written and researched that I've read in the Times in many years. The detail about the procedures necessary to unravel the life of one who died alone, without apparent next of kin, was hugely illuminating. Great credit to those who sorted through Mr. Bell's belongings with such care and respect.
But I am in awe of Kleinfeld's ability to put together such a coherent, compelling portrait of a man who died so alone. It is especially rewarding in contrast to other stories that have recently required the Public Editor's attention. It is a refreshing change from the Times' genuflecting to the rich, powerful, and/or famous.
That said, the story was one of the best written and researched that I've read in the Times in many years. The detail about the procedures necessary to unravel the life of one who died alone, without apparent next of kin, was hugely illuminating. Great credit to those who sorted through Mr. Bell's belongings with such care and respect.
But I am in awe of Kleinfeld's ability to put together such a coherent, compelling portrait of a man who died so alone. It is especially rewarding in contrast to other stories that have recently required the Public Editor's attention. It is a refreshing change from the Times' genuflecting to the rich, powerful, and/or famous.
52
I found the story depressing, and upsetting. More so because it was so well done. It made me feel some very depressing and upsetting things, to think about things I don't much like to think about.
Of course, I didn't have to read it. I chose too. I'm glad I did. I'm glad it was there.
Of course, I didn't have to read it. I chose too. I'm glad I did. I'm glad it was there.
45
Your post is all about you and your feelings. The ethical dilemma is about the subject and his feelings.
Typical liberal world view: "if I am personally ok with it, it is fine. If I am not fine with it, it is a sign of lack of morality or intelligence."
Of course this fellow is just one of the legion of overtly liberal and partisan "verified commenters" who are clearly chosen for ideological purity. That, along with careful censorship of dissenting views, are what make the NYT comment threads the most boring and predictable backwater on the internet.
Typical liberal world view: "if I am personally ok with it, it is fine. If I am not fine with it, it is a sign of lack of morality or intelligence."
Of course this fellow is just one of the legion of overtly liberal and partisan "verified commenters" who are clearly chosen for ideological purity. That, along with careful censorship of dissenting views, are what make the NYT comment threads the most boring and predictable backwater on the internet.
.
@ Chris Lydle:
I realize there is less than a 5% chance that you will read/reply to this, but I'll have a go anyway.
In 21st c. America, partisans of all stripes take an attitude of "if I don't like it, it's not OK for you to do it". I hate that, but unlike you, I also hate it when it's done by people who are not "liberal" (please define that word, by the way). Because, I hated it when Jeb Bush, and then federal officials, were dragged into the deathbed matter of Terry Schiavo (whose legal guardian was quite clear on what should be done). Her life was thrown open for all to see, just so some politicians could score some points; her husband was excoriated by people who never met him. They treated him as immoral, or unintelligent, or both; or evil, or homicidal.
But I am more interested in your second paragraph! I am pure, I am an idiot, and I am logical; does that grant me "ideological purity"? If so, where do I get this "Verified" status of which you speak?
And as to censorship, absence of dissenting views, and whatever you wrote at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/public-editor/margaret-sullivan-new-yo... :
Please, tell me which point of view has been censored when Ms. Sullivan has written on coverage of Israel/Palestine?
Which point of view was censored regarding the nonpublication of Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
Where does Ms. Sullivan stand on NYT coverage of pro-life rallies?
Good luck.
@ Chris Lydle:
I realize there is less than a 5% chance that you will read/reply to this, but I'll have a go anyway.
In 21st c. America, partisans of all stripes take an attitude of "if I don't like it, it's not OK for you to do it". I hate that, but unlike you, I also hate it when it's done by people who are not "liberal" (please define that word, by the way). Because, I hated it when Jeb Bush, and then federal officials, were dragged into the deathbed matter of Terry Schiavo (whose legal guardian was quite clear on what should be done). Her life was thrown open for all to see, just so some politicians could score some points; her husband was excoriated by people who never met him. They treated him as immoral, or unintelligent, or both; or evil, or homicidal.
But I am more interested in your second paragraph! I am pure, I am an idiot, and I am logical; does that grant me "ideological purity"? If so, where do I get this "Verified" status of which you speak?
And as to censorship, absence of dissenting views, and whatever you wrote at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/public-editor/margaret-sullivan-new-yo... :
Please, tell me which point of view has been censored when Ms. Sullivan has written on coverage of Israel/Palestine?
Which point of view was censored regarding the nonpublication of Charlie Hebdo cartoons?
Where does Ms. Sullivan stand on NYT coverage of pro-life rallies?
Good luck.
2