I wonder where we go as a country from here. The GOP, from top to bottom, is laying out their plan to take over and eliminate rights in plain sight. Meanwhile, Democrats aren't willing to do anything but play by the made up rules of the game. What would they possibly do if the president isn't even considering protecting Americans from the extremist court? Just like everything else, we'll look back in 20 years and think that someone maybe should've done something.
Very principled response. No one should “debate” rights when the alternative position is simply “I don’t think you are entitled to basic rights.” As the consequences of these religious and racist bans proliferate, I hope they become less popular, but I’m not holding my breath.
The same issue has existed for various other religiously-motivated, reality-separated positions for a long time now. Climate change and evolution in schools are the first two that come to mind. I've never been entirely sure what the best method to combat it is.
It's entirely correct to reject the concept, as they're not debates, they're simply accepting a shared reality and facts. And yet, if media is simply going to go ahead with it anyway, is it accomplishing anything? Perhaps that just means there's nothing that can be done, and this is the best response, because if nothing else, it's telling off the media company. Whether there's practical value or not, it's always nice to do.
I was on the fence as to if this was a good idea but after reading Lauren's thoughts, I agree with her. It's one thing to debate the finer points of abortion law (# of months, viability, etc) with an abortion opponent but what happened with the SC ruling is a much bigger issue. This is about bodily autonomy and there is no debate (unless you're a fascist). I'm trans and would never debate with anyone my right to exist and lead the life I want to lead. Corporate media continues to suck.
Is it clear if a substitute was found for the segment, or was it canceled all together? I agree it's critical that this issue isn't treated as both sides being equally valid, but do wonder if this might also make it so anti-choicers then get more solo air/media time (or they even find faux-abortion advocates to "debate"). Is that a possibility, or am I in so much of a "worst-case-scenario" mindset that I'm over-thinking that?
So much of the mainstream media is stuck in the need for false equivalency. They seem like the managers desperate to force their unwilling workers back to the office no matter the cost. They’ve been doing things one way for so long they can’t imagine any other way.
I think for the typical news interview show it’s less about some notion of journalistic integrity and more about audience building. The pro-slavery side isn’t going to watch if we don’t have one of their advocates on, so to speak.
As a former newspaper reporter and news editor I can tell you that in practice “presenting both sides” has pretty strict limits. Reporters and editors know there aren’t “two sides to every question.” And in practice we didn’t feel a need to let every crazy present “his side” of the story.
The false equivalency begins where there’s a perception that a big part of the audience actually believes the earth is flat or that women are second class citizens.
Thank you so much for publishing this Parker, and for writing it Lauren. This is the only newsletter I pay for and it is worth every fricking penny. My heart feels so broken with the state of the world, but it is reading things like this newsletter that give me hope. Thank God for abortions.
xcellent interview. I feel a little less crazy knowing that there are others who see the pitfall of framing this issue as a “both sides” debate. There is no valid “two sides” here. My only point of critique is that, as a woman of color, I do feel some kind of way about white women liberally applying terms like “white supremacy.” This is already a scary topic--no need to throw in buzz words where they don’t apply. Many abortion opponents are themselves people of color. Non-white countries like El Salvador have some of the most restrictive anti-choice laws in the world. To deny the complicity of non-white people in the encroachment on my rights feels little infantilizing to me as a non-white person. Granted, I will add that there are other POC who frame this as a white supremacy issue, and I disagree with them as well.
Understandable. This shouldn't be a debate. One hopes that she will take advantage of other locations. There are safe community spaces for a conversation; e.g., libraries or town halls or..., etc.
I wonder where we go as a country from here. The GOP, from top to bottom, is laying out their plan to take over and eliminate rights in plain sight. Meanwhile, Democrats aren't willing to do anything but play by the made up rules of the game. What would they possibly do if the president isn't even considering protecting Americans from the extremist court? Just like everything else, we'll look back in 20 years and think that someone maybe should've done something.
Very principled response. No one should “debate” rights when the alternative position is simply “I don’t think you are entitled to basic rights.” As the consequences of these religious and racist bans proliferate, I hope they become less popular, but I’m not holding my breath.
The same issue has existed for various other religiously-motivated, reality-separated positions for a long time now. Climate change and evolution in schools are the first two that come to mind. I've never been entirely sure what the best method to combat it is.
It's entirely correct to reject the concept, as they're not debates, they're simply accepting a shared reality and facts. And yet, if media is simply going to go ahead with it anyway, is it accomplishing anything? Perhaps that just means there's nothing that can be done, and this is the best response, because if nothing else, it's telling off the media company. Whether there's practical value or not, it's always nice to do.
I was on the fence as to if this was a good idea but after reading Lauren's thoughts, I agree with her. It's one thing to debate the finer points of abortion law (# of months, viability, etc) with an abortion opponent but what happened with the SC ruling is a much bigger issue. This is about bodily autonomy and there is no debate (unless you're a fascist). I'm trans and would never debate with anyone my right to exist and lead the life I want to lead. Corporate media continues to suck.
Is it clear if a substitute was found for the segment, or was it canceled all together? I agree it's critical that this issue isn't treated as both sides being equally valid, but do wonder if this might also make it so anti-choicers then get more solo air/media time (or they even find faux-abortion advocates to "debate"). Is that a possibility, or am I in so much of a "worst-case-scenario" mindset that I'm over-thinking that?
Honestly really tired of the "both sides" mentality by now! Appreciate this column
I agree. This is not a debate. Thanks for publishing this!
So much of the mainstream media is stuck in the need for false equivalency. They seem like the managers desperate to force their unwilling workers back to the office no matter the cost. They’ve been doing things one way for so long they can’t imagine any other way.
I think for the typical news interview show it’s less about some notion of journalistic integrity and more about audience building. The pro-slavery side isn’t going to watch if we don’t have one of their advocates on, so to speak.
As a former newspaper reporter and news editor I can tell you that in practice “presenting both sides” has pretty strict limits. Reporters and editors know there aren’t “two sides to every question.” And in practice we didn’t feel a need to let every crazy present “his side” of the story.
The false equivalency begins where there’s a perception that a big part of the audience actually believes the earth is flat or that women are second class citizens.
Thank you so much for publishing this Parker, and for writing it Lauren. This is the only newsletter I pay for and it is worth every fricking penny. My heart feels so broken with the state of the world, but it is reading things like this newsletter that give me hope. Thank God for abortions.
Great newsletter as always
I'm glad you cancelled your appearance. I'm tired of media acting like this is a legitimate position.
xcellent interview. I feel a little less crazy knowing that there are others who see the pitfall of framing this issue as a “both sides” debate. There is no valid “two sides” here. My only point of critique is that, as a woman of color, I do feel some kind of way about white women liberally applying terms like “white supremacy.” This is already a scary topic--no need to throw in buzz words where they don’t apply. Many abortion opponents are themselves people of color. Non-white countries like El Salvador have some of the most restrictive anti-choice laws in the world. To deny the complicity of non-white people in the encroachment on my rights feels little infantilizing to me as a non-white person. Granted, I will add that there are other POC who frame this as a white supremacy issue, and I disagree with them as well.
Understandable. This shouldn't be a debate. One hopes that she will take advantage of other locations. There are safe community spaces for a conversation; e.g., libraries or town halls or..., etc.