03-17-2024, 03:59 PM
I recently found an article in Fox regarding Trumps intentions on the "issue" of abortion. Needless to say, like all 'sanctioned' media, it is rife with holes and gaps. But I read these things with that in mind. I understand that whenever entertainment of the "news" flavor surfaces, it will be in some way biased. It is the hazard of journalism. To say it wasn't a 'choice' about how to report and what to say would be as incorrect as it would be correct.
Balanced reporting is about facts, which can be eminently boring to the reporter. They frequently offset this boredom by including opinions (attributed or otherwise) and craft the story with those opinion driving the narrative. In modern times, say after the emergence of mass media empires, journalists were encouraged to "engender activism," it would appear it was considered "good business." The world, suddenly driven to mass consumption of "information," became the petri dish for many bad experiments. But that's another story.
This article... (Trump promotes abortion compromise as Democrats push issue in 2024 race) Details a few things, namely that Mr. Trump is "announcing" his intention to pursue a "compromise" regarding the existing furor over government mandates regarding abortion limitations. Apparently, the Democrat party is stridently seeking "changes" that reduces (eliminates?) the government's power to limit a citizen's access to medically-provided abortion services.
Now enter the noise, let's dispel the demons. I'm not going to talk about whether there is an undue ideological motivation behind one side of the argument, I'm not going to characterize the activism of either camp. I'm not going to belabor economic exploitation of the topic. I refuse to name-call and participate in what many seem only too thrilled to do... namely, turn the issue into a social media joke compartmentalized into 'camps.' But I just want to point out that unless we engage personally, directly, the camps' chatter is pretty much all we get to hear anymore...
Political comprise has a few eternal characteristics... One - Neither side fully "wins." Two - Both sides are free to bitch about it, while keeping the contention alive. Think of it as a political arms treaty. Neither party can claim a win, nor can it be said that either side lost; the fight isn't over, but we are going to "move on" for now. I call it tweaking the status quo. The radicals on both sides will self-identify as they rage-on forward (hoping to set fire to the other sides ideological edifice), and the press will fan the flames (as they always do) equally self-identifying in form and function.
The American genius for compromise is, unfortunately, often instinctually over-relied upon, I think. Sometimes "deciding" can't be half-assed or lukewarm - we've already seen where that might lead us as a society.
A compromise on this matter is akin to "kicking the can down the road" which, as we have learned, is considered somewhat 'virtuous' to politicians. But there is a danger in doing this. And those who will suffer, are powerless to control the dialogue. The exploitation of public debate is ever present.
But our political construct demands "dancing around Democracy" and politicians are well-trained in the dance. With those that they claim as allies, will offer anything to end the debate, from total distraction, to polarizing public relations and theater. And I think we must refuse them the control of us they so heavily abuse.
Whatever can be said about abortion is usually ignoring something else. Every statement that is universally true on the matter is refused a place at the table. Should it be a "never" thing? Should it be completely abolished, "Damn the torpedoes!"-style? Should be entirely up to the individual(s) directly involved (that's another ball of twine to unravel?) Should only be the child bearer's decision? Can any other third-party have a "say?" Can a doctor be compelled to provide the service? Can a doctor be compelled to refuse the service? All of these questions lead to half-answers, and conditional rationale. A government full of the politically motivated can't possibly be 'relied upon' to provide an answer... all they ever come up with is "ambiguous math."
I will spare you my opinion about it further. I am not a journalist.
Just felt like offering this up for discussion. If your game.
Balanced reporting is about facts, which can be eminently boring to the reporter. They frequently offset this boredom by including opinions (attributed or otherwise) and craft the story with those opinion driving the narrative. In modern times, say after the emergence of mass media empires, journalists were encouraged to "engender activism," it would appear it was considered "good business." The world, suddenly driven to mass consumption of "information," became the petri dish for many bad experiments. But that's another story.
This article... (Trump promotes abortion compromise as Democrats push issue in 2024 race) Details a few things, namely that Mr. Trump is "announcing" his intention to pursue a "compromise" regarding the existing furor over government mandates regarding abortion limitations. Apparently, the Democrat party is stridently seeking "changes" that reduces (eliminates?) the government's power to limit a citizen's access to medically-provided abortion services.
Now enter the noise, let's dispel the demons. I'm not going to talk about whether there is an undue ideological motivation behind one side of the argument, I'm not going to characterize the activism of either camp. I'm not going to belabor economic exploitation of the topic. I refuse to name-call and participate in what many seem only too thrilled to do... namely, turn the issue into a social media joke compartmentalized into 'camps.' But I just want to point out that unless we engage personally, directly, the camps' chatter is pretty much all we get to hear anymore...
Political comprise has a few eternal characteristics... One - Neither side fully "wins." Two - Both sides are free to bitch about it, while keeping the contention alive. Think of it as a political arms treaty. Neither party can claim a win, nor can it be said that either side lost; the fight isn't over, but we are going to "move on" for now. I call it tweaking the status quo. The radicals on both sides will self-identify as they rage-on forward (hoping to set fire to the other sides ideological edifice), and the press will fan the flames (as they always do) equally self-identifying in form and function.
The American genius for compromise is, unfortunately, often instinctually over-relied upon, I think. Sometimes "deciding" can't be half-assed or lukewarm - we've already seen where that might lead us as a society.
A compromise on this matter is akin to "kicking the can down the road" which, as we have learned, is considered somewhat 'virtuous' to politicians. But there is a danger in doing this. And those who will suffer, are powerless to control the dialogue. The exploitation of public debate is ever present.
But our political construct demands "dancing around Democracy" and politicians are well-trained in the dance. With those that they claim as allies, will offer anything to end the debate, from total distraction, to polarizing public relations and theater. And I think we must refuse them the control of us they so heavily abuse.
Whatever can be said about abortion is usually ignoring something else. Every statement that is universally true on the matter is refused a place at the table. Should it be a "never" thing? Should it be completely abolished, "Damn the torpedoes!"-style? Should be entirely up to the individual(s) directly involved (that's another ball of twine to unravel?) Should only be the child bearer's decision? Can any other third-party have a "say?" Can a doctor be compelled to provide the service? Can a doctor be compelled to refuse the service? All of these questions lead to half-answers, and conditional rationale. A government full of the politically motivated can't possibly be 'relied upon' to provide an answer... all they ever come up with is "ambiguous math."
I will spare you my opinion about it further. I am not a journalist.
Just felt like offering this up for discussion. If your game.
