Thursday, April 02, 2015
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Media and Words and Stuff
I've spent a lot of the last few days talking to the press about the recent commutations by President Obama. I got calls from Yahoo News and ProPublica and the NY Times and a bunch of others from as far away as Australia. I think the quote that worked out the best was this, from the San Francisco Chronicle: "Finally, the administration is demonstrating how pardon power should be used, with, as Osler put it, "the most powerful person in the world freeing the least powerful person in the world."
Dealing with the press can be tricky. In addressing the continuing messiness in Indiana, Governor Pence gave a press conference a few days ago that was sometimes compelling and sometimes just odd. While saying that the religious liberty law there needs to be "clarified," he seemed to very much take offense at the press treatment the law has received. He referred to "mischaracterizations" and worse by people who reported on the law, saying it allowed discrimination.
Was the press unfair to Indiana and the law?
Comments:
<< Home
I am not sure "unfair" really gets to the heart of the matter.
The hysterical coverage of the Indiana RFRA kerfuffle offers another case study in the ugly mess of disingenuous and unproductive (and perhaps even ultimately destructive) partisan discourse that permeates our body politic.
As for the "press" coverage, I must admit that I really have not seen much. Rather, I have read myriad op-ed pieces from the usual suspects, press coverage of the Tim Cook, Miley Cyrus et al tweets, and caught clips of the breathless back-and-forth on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC ("cut his mic off").
Where I suspect the "press" failed somewhere along the line was in allowing the event to be framed in a universe of false facts and outrageous suppositions.
Was the press fair? They were not helpful. If I am being charitable, I will say that they did not turn the "stampede" of overheated and misleading rhetoric. A harder question would be whether the press egged on the feeding frenzy.
Either way, instead of a nuanced discussion of public policy, over an issue emanating from a real and serious conflict of American values, we were served up a circus instead.
The hysterical coverage of the Indiana RFRA kerfuffle offers another case study in the ugly mess of disingenuous and unproductive (and perhaps even ultimately destructive) partisan discourse that permeates our body politic.
As for the "press" coverage, I must admit that I really have not seen much. Rather, I have read myriad op-ed pieces from the usual suspects, press coverage of the Tim Cook, Miley Cyrus et al tweets, and caught clips of the breathless back-and-forth on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC ("cut his mic off").
Where I suspect the "press" failed somewhere along the line was in allowing the event to be framed in a universe of false facts and outrageous suppositions.
Was the press fair? They were not helpful. If I am being charitable, I will say that they did not turn the "stampede" of overheated and misleading rhetoric. A harder question would be whether the press egged on the feeding frenzy.
Either way, instead of a nuanced discussion of public policy, over an issue emanating from a real and serious conflict of American values, we were served up a circus instead.
I think the Onion piece was right on. The lege and Governor set out to enable Christians to discriminate against LBGT people getting married, having weddings, etc. Then they denied that there was any attempt to enable discrimination. So rather than outright lie, they dissembled, pointed fingers, etc. The whole episode would make Nixon look honest and transparent.
# posted by 
: 9:37 AM
: 9:37 AM
Really? We think the Onion piece got it right? If that is true, then the press was just fine. As Mark pointed out on Tuesday there really was no discernible difference between the Onion and the mainstream press (at least at that point).
Actually, I thought this NPR piece this morning was a thin ray of hope and a model for constructive journalism (although it surely would have been more helpful on Monday):
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/396975983/what-s-changed-since-the-first-religious-freedom-law-was-passed-in-1993
Actually, I thought this NPR piece this morning was a thin ray of hope and a model for constructive journalism (although it surely would have been more helpful on Monday):
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/396975983/what-s-changed-since-the-first-religious-freedom-law-was-passed-in-1993
Anti-discrimination laws are designed to restrain the exercise of an individual's liberty to choose with whom to associate, do business with, live next door to, etc. Carving out exceptions-exemptions-to the broad sweep of anti-discrimination restraints in order to accommodate the rights of individuals to exercise unfettered judgments about such personal matters as how and when they may practice their religious, moral and ethical principles, or the right of association, is precedented.
Examples include the exemption in fair housing laws for owner occupied housing of four units or less; the use of illegal drugs in religious practices of Native Americans.
Where "protected classes" do not have general access to housing, and other essential goods and services, etc. it may be fair game to restrain the right of individuals to be discriminant.
On the other hand, it make sense to protect individuals in the choices they make-wrongheaded as they may be seen by others-in decisions regarding such personal matters as freedom of association, freedom to practice one's religion and to act upon religious beliefs. certainly where there are ample alternatives for real access to essential services, and perhaps, unqualifiedly where non-essential services and goods are concerned.
Absolutism is the problem. Accommodation is the solution.
The "right" to essential services may be granted without including, as a "right," the "right" to compel someone in the business to provide wedding services, sell flowers or bake and sell cake, when to do so would offend the religious sensibilities of the vendor, and perhaps, because there are alternative available and the service is not essential, that is, it does not involve essentials, i.e., food, clothing, lodging. We have experience with accommodations in this last category, and it has worked out well..
The Republic will not fall if "protected classes" do not always have their way.
To answer your question, yes, I do think that the great weight of the press has fallen heavily on the side of a triumphalist LGBT community.
Examples include the exemption in fair housing laws for owner occupied housing of four units or less; the use of illegal drugs in religious practices of Native Americans.
Where "protected classes" do not have general access to housing, and other essential goods and services, etc. it may be fair game to restrain the right of individuals to be discriminant.
On the other hand, it make sense to protect individuals in the choices they make-wrongheaded as they may be seen by others-in decisions regarding such personal matters as freedom of association, freedom to practice one's religion and to act upon religious beliefs. certainly where there are ample alternatives for real access to essential services, and perhaps, unqualifiedly where non-essential services and goods are concerned.
Absolutism is the problem. Accommodation is the solution.
The "right" to essential services may be granted without including, as a "right," the "right" to compel someone in the business to provide wedding services, sell flowers or bake and sell cake, when to do so would offend the religious sensibilities of the vendor, and perhaps, because there are alternative available and the service is not essential, that is, it does not involve essentials, i.e., food, clothing, lodging. We have experience with accommodations in this last category, and it has worked out well..
The Republic will not fall if "protected classes" do not always have their way.
To answer your question, yes, I do think that the great weight of the press has fallen heavily on the side of a triumphalist LGBT community.
# posted by : 11:24 AM
: 11:24 AM
What is the big deal about cakes? Why would a gay couple want to buy a cake from homophobes? And why would Christians not want to sell a cake to whoever?
# posted by : 11:50 AM
: 11:50 AM
So, Anon 2, you would back a law that would allow a person to discriminate on the basis of their religion against someone of another race ("mark of Ham"), religion ("killer of Jesus" or ("like those 9/11 terrorists"), gender ("women should be subject to husband or father and not in public"), length of hair, foods they consume, or their SSN, DL, or tel # (we serve no one with three consecutive 6s in their number).
BTW, all of these can be found with religious justification in 21st century American religious bodies.
BTW, all of these can be found with religious justification in 21st century American religious bodies.
# posted by : 1:18 PM
: 1:18 PM
No.
I would exempt from anti-discrimination laws religiously based objections to direct or indirect participation in behavior-the operative word is behavior-which violates one's religious principles where the commonweal is not seriously threatened.
To require-the operative word is require-someone to provide services which complement activities or behaviors one believes to be immoral, unethical or in violation of religious sensibilities, is to force their participation and acquiescence in that activity, however indirectly.
Anti-discrimination laws detract from the general principle of liberty, and are justified when necessary for the common good. Laws which restrict one's inherent right to discriminate in matters pertaining political and economic rights in a democracy lend themselves to no exemptions on the basis of race, gender, "length of hair," to use your example, or other extraneous bases. Other restrictive laws do warrant exemptions, in some instances.
Keep in mind that discrimination is not always a vice. The law itself discriminates on the basis of age in the matters of voting rights, alcohol consumption, sexual relations between adults and children, and the liberty of those with communicable diseases, etc. (I do not want to go there, but there is the whole "other question" of the legal restrictions specifically directed in the last century and still today at Mormons concerning plural marriage, but there is no time and not enough relevance to tread this rabbit trail in these comments.)
Absolutism when speaking of discrimination or anti-discrimination is the problem.
What I said was that an exemption from being complicit-and the providing of services and goods for a wedding is to be complicit to some degree-in behavior that contravenes one's religious, ethical or moral precepts, is as worthy as the exemption granted owner occupied four unit dwelling houses under the fair housing laws, or observants for the use of illegal drugs in some Native American religious observances.
These exemptions are deemed not to threaten the common good or the nation's welfare. A more radical exemption I did not mention previously exists: the exemption from combat duty granted conscientious objectors.
This is what I said, is all I mean, and is the sum of what I believe on the subject.
I would exempt from anti-discrimination laws religiously based objections to direct or indirect participation in behavior-the operative word is behavior-which violates one's religious principles where the commonweal is not seriously threatened.
To require-the operative word is require-someone to provide services which complement activities or behaviors one believes to be immoral, unethical or in violation of religious sensibilities, is to force their participation and acquiescence in that activity, however indirectly.
Anti-discrimination laws detract from the general principle of liberty, and are justified when necessary for the common good. Laws which restrict one's inherent right to discriminate in matters pertaining political and economic rights in a democracy lend themselves to no exemptions on the basis of race, gender, "length of hair," to use your example, or other extraneous bases. Other restrictive laws do warrant exemptions, in some instances.
Keep in mind that discrimination is not always a vice. The law itself discriminates on the basis of age in the matters of voting rights, alcohol consumption, sexual relations between adults and children, and the liberty of those with communicable diseases, etc. (I do not want to go there, but there is the whole "other question" of the legal restrictions specifically directed in the last century and still today at Mormons concerning plural marriage, but there is no time and not enough relevance to tread this rabbit trail in these comments.)
Absolutism when speaking of discrimination or anti-discrimination is the problem.
What I said was that an exemption from being complicit-and the providing of services and goods for a wedding is to be complicit to some degree-in behavior that contravenes one's religious, ethical or moral precepts, is as worthy as the exemption granted owner occupied four unit dwelling houses under the fair housing laws, or observants for the use of illegal drugs in some Native American religious observances.
These exemptions are deemed not to threaten the common good or the nation's welfare. A more radical exemption I did not mention previously exists: the exemption from combat duty granted conscientious objectors.
This is what I said, is all I mean, and is the sum of what I believe on the subject.
# posted by : 5:47 PM
: 5:47 PM
Apparently our backward legislature here in NC passed some similar BS a while back that went undetected by the media. So I think Indiana has been unfairly targeted.
The fact that a big NCAA Finals is slated to be played in State this weekend has probably contributed to the media frenzy.
ok - now playing dumb here; but after thinking about this a while my diminished mind remembered the term Hobby Lobby. In which case a business owners religion could be imposed on the employees of the firm (birth control). Isn't this an extension of that decision? My religious belief (as a business owner) can make me immune from providing services to people of differing beliefs? Quite frankly how does one know when a person comes into the business to order flowers or buy a pizza? They don't unless the couple comes in holding hands or whatever. Quite frankly it makes for a crappy business model. When you run a business the bottom line is PROFIT.
And if you are LGBT, do you want to take your business to someone who so vehemently objects to your sexuality?
And for the record I don't know any gay people who are serving pizza at their wedding/commitment ceremony.
Post a Comment
The fact that a big NCAA Finals is slated to be played in State this weekend has probably contributed to the media frenzy.
ok - now playing dumb here; but after thinking about this a while my diminished mind remembered the term Hobby Lobby. In which case a business owners religion could be imposed on the employees of the firm (birth control). Isn't this an extension of that decision? My religious belief (as a business owner) can make me immune from providing services to people of differing beliefs? Quite frankly how does one know when a person comes into the business to order flowers or buy a pizza? They don't unless the couple comes in holding hands or whatever. Quite frankly it makes for a crappy business model. When you run a business the bottom line is PROFIT.
And if you are LGBT, do you want to take your business to someone who so vehemently objects to your sexuality?
And for the record I don't know any gay people who are serving pizza at their wedding/commitment ceremony.
<< Home
