|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/07/2003 12:53:44 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
When a newspaper calls its letters section "Voice of the People," can you expect to read what readers really think? Or do editors reserve the right to interpret readers' words to comply with their own preconceptions?
The answer depends on which newspaper you're reading -- and the subject of the letter. If your letter presents abortion in an unsympathetic light, your letter may well be aborted or distorted.
Four newspapers received identical letters from Bill Beckman, executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee. Three of the four printed it accurately. But the fourth, and largest, changed the wording in a way that changed the meaning. Every time Beckman wrote "pro-life," the September 7 CHICAGO TRIBUNE printed "anti-abortion."
What's wrong with that? Aren't pro-life and anti-abortion synonyms?
No, far from it! Beckman explains, "[T]he Pro-Life movement is much more than anti-abortion because we oppose any cultural expediency that views death as a solution, including euthanasia, cloning, population control, etc." He spoke of "the inconsistency of changing references to the Pro-Life movement when such a change would be unthinkable for other movements such as the equal rights movement."
Columnist Dan Zanoza of the ILLINOIS LEADER adds, "[W]ould the TRIBUNE consider changing the word 'pro-choice' to 'pro-abortion' in a letter the paper might receive from one of its readers?" He adds, "It would seem to me that a letter to the editor can be construed as a direct quote." Something attributed to John Jones should be what John wrote, not modified by an intermediary.
TRIBUNE "Voice of the People" editor Dodie Hofstetter says, "I am accused on a daily basis of being pro-this and anti-that. But I do not choose letters because they represent my sentiments, or those of the editorial board . . . I have absolutely no agenda when choosing letters about any subject -- other than trying to find a mix of interesting opinions."
Well, okay. That's a noble goal. But apparently Ms. Hofstetter and her counterparts at some other publications forget: If your self-described mandate is "choosing letters," then choose them and print them. Let them be the undistorted voices of what readers really say.
Why the aversion to the word pro-life? One "pro-choice" spokesperson objected to the term pro-life -- countering "What do you think we are? Pro-death?" Well, if you favor a procedure that makes a heart stop beating and brain activity cease, wouldn't an objective observer call that promoting death?
Journalistic word-jockeying can dismiss a baby's kicking inside the mother's womb, saying "But it's not alive yet." People with that mindset avoid the personal pronouns he and she. If they talk about it, they can con themselves into thinking it's a "product of conception," fair game for that other euphemism termination of pregnancy.
Listen, friends, we need to be clear in our language. We are not "anti-abortion" or "anti- choice." We are pro-life, pro-human dignity, pro-human rights. Of course, our opponents don't like that, but be sure your neighbors understand what we believe and that our critics don't change our words. Words matter.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
So pro life isn't exactly pro life for some on the right.
As horrible as it sounds, I might be willing to stipulate for abortions on the grounds of rape and incest. I think ALL abortions are wrong. I think abortions after rapes or incest unfairly punish the wrong person. However, they represent a tiny fraction of the total number of abortions performed in this country. I believe I have seen the figure <2%. And yet they are a top concern with the apathetic masses who keep abortion legal. If we could stop all other abortions, wouldn't this be preferrable to the situation we have now?
Also, remember what Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey did to obtain an abortion? She claimed she was raped, when in fact the sex had been consensual. If we simply allowed rape and incest abortions, the number of "rape victims" walking into clinics will skyrocket. If we add some safeguards (the rape has to be reported and investigated, etc.) the feminists will scream about women having to go through the Spanish Inquisition to get an abortion, and we're right back at square one. No, the way to beat this is to put the focus where it belongs: on the children who are being murdered. Even in our sick age there are few people who believe a kid deserves to be ripped limb from limb because his father commited a criminal act. We also must defend the women caught in this situation, and remind folks that an abortion doesn't unrape her, or help her healing process, it just adds real guilt to the unjustified feelings of guilt many rape victims feel.
Also, when someone talked about the incitings to violence in the Koran, he said, "well, in the New Testament Jesus said 'I have come not to bring not peace but the sword.'"
Which of course, aside from displaying fundamental misunderstanding, but Christianity in a compromising light.
I hardly listen to him anymore.
Hannity needs to get a grip: Either a fetus is a child or it's not. You don't kill a child because his father was a criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.