264 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
Ferdinand Bendt and his wife, Rosa Bendt, of Newark, N. J., had died from 
typhoid fever, the result of eating infected oysters. On investigation it was 
found that the official report of the board of contagious diseases shows that 
neither of the persons had eaten oysters, but that they had eaten other foods 
which are sometimes infected by typhoid fever. Also the death certificates 
showed that one of them did not die of typhoid fever, but of cerebro-spinal fever. 
Before the original article was printed, the attention of the reporter was 
called to the fact that the deceased had not eaten oysters, but he ignored the 
information and printed the sensational report regardless of truth. Later the 
newspaper was asked to correct the misstatement, and replied that a correction 
would be printed if the space required to do it was paid for. 
In another case to which much prominence was given, a young physician 
gave to an evening paper an item in which it was stated that a certain young lady, 
a teacher ina public school, was very ill with a malignant case of typhoid, incurred 
by eating oysters. A careful investigation of the facts proved that she was but 
slightly ill, and not with typhoid fever; in fact, the doctor was unable to diag- 
nose her case, but he half jestingly asked her one day if she had been eating 
oysters, and he was informed that the family had received some sent by a friend. 
He overlooked the fact, however, that she had not eaten any of them, while her 
mother and brother had done so and were not ill. A written statement signed 
by the mother and nurse of the patient established these facts. The result of 
the newspaper item was to give this young physician some free advertising, as 
having brought the young lady through a course of typhoid fever, and incident- 
ally to instill an unfounded prejudice against oysters in the minds of thousands 
of readers of the newspaper. 
Another illustration is afforded by the action of the health officers of 
Poquonnock, in Connecticut, where, several years ago, an epidemic of scarlet 
fever was attributed to the culture of oysters within the limits of the town. 
The health officers went so far as to require the destruction of the industry in 
their waters, for which the state of Connecticut some years later paid damages. 
At the present time no one believes that the oysters had anything to do with the 
epidemic which was then charged to them. 
Many other instances can be cited in which sensational reports have been 
published with very little, if any, evidence underlying them. In many cases 
the motive for these reports is clearly that the reporter is paid for the ‘‘scoop,”’ 
as he calls it, and it is an unfortunate fact that there are some newspapers that 
will accept and publish any sensation which is not actionable. Also it may pos- 
sibly sometimes occur that a physician or health officer will carelessly allow 
himself to make public a suspicion or surmise which does great injustice, 
though it may perhaps enhance his own importance in the public eye. 
