It must be a hell hole for girls and women living in a state that BANS abortions. After you vote against all Republicans in the next election, if republicans win, you should try your hardest to move to a state that has a constitutional amendment to protect women's right to make her own decisions. Why would anyone let her daughter attend a college in a red state? That is really playing with fire.
At least the overwhelming majority of WaPo commenters on the article called him out for carrying water for the extremists and pointed out that Republicans are liars.
I did email him. He did respond and claims he’s using Youngkin’s words so it is “both sided” journalism. He also says the dictionary states that ban and limit describe the same thing. He was very condescending in his response to me like I’m some little kid that needs simple explanations to understand why he wrote what he wrote. Anyway, vomit! Y’all need to email him too. That would be fun. Also, I’m going to get rid of my WaPo subscription.
As a gaslighting victim, this constant gaslighting from the right is infuriating. But we expose it by showing what they mean. I’ve spent a ton of time of IG talking about what R’s say versus what they mean. They mean ban, whatever word salad they say. And this is what bans mean at 6 weeks and 12 weeks and 15 weeks, and show real victims. Tell their stories. And at the end of every story, ask the viewer how they would feel if this was their wife mother sister aunt daughter niece etc. Because that outcome is what they mean. It’s their goal for every person who can be pregnant in America.
Also stop subscribing to WaPo. Just stop. I stopped reading that publication the second Amazon bought it. They have put conservatives in key positions, and they are either going to turn it into a conservative rag or kill it. I don’t really think the billionaire at the top cares which happens. It’s more important to support publications like Abortion Every Day.
'show real victims; tell their stories.' Yes. This. It should be so simple. But in a way it's not, because we have to do more work than name-calling. But that's okay. We're never going to beat a bully in a contest of name-calling anyway.
It’s also freaking annoying that the WaPo journalist got so defensive. Maybe take a beat and have a listen. Do some research and think about how you’re using language. Journalists of all people should be *very* careful about their language and so often they aren’t. It’s incredible.
I'm sure they have their "orders". Last year they won three prestigious journalism awards, two of the three writers had quit by the time they were awarded.
This article is dumb AND it also hits another major pet peeve of mine with abortion coverage in that it is written in the crappy “view from nowhere” where authors pretend they are immune from any consequences we mortals might face and they’re just doing sports coverage. I hate it!
I completely agree with the sentiment here. But this is a trap. One of the reasons conservatives are so good at politics is they get their opponents to go on wild goose chases and look foolish. They want to argue about language because it's a distraction from talking about who can't get care. Every minute wasted is precious time and so it's a win for them. The more abstract the debate, the better it is for them. The ONLY thing we should talking about are the stories of real people suffering under these laws. If a 15 week 'limit' polls better than a 15 week 'ban' (and I'm sure it does), that means we aren't doing our job. It's the EFFECT of these policies, spelled out in as graphic detail as possible, that matters, not what we call them. It's tempting to take shortcuts, but that's ultimately a losing strategy. They're counting on us to fall into their traps. Yeah language matters. It's persuasive. It's how the new House speaker got elected. He's as extreme as any Republican anywhere, he'll do everything he can to take all of your rights away, but apparently he makes sure to be very very polite and 'civil' while doing it. That's the point. They can, and will, change how they talk about it. They won't change what they're doing, and that's where the focus needs to be. 'There is a truth here; that's what needs reporting.'
I agree with you that consequences should always be the focus. As NYU professor Jay Rosen says report “not the odds, but the stakes.”
I think Jessica’s point is “they are using language to hide the consequences of their actions and pay attention. And I think that is an effective way to highlight stakes (ex: they know their bills are so bad and dangerous they are trying to rebrand them--don’t fall for it...)
This WaPo article is an *exemplar* of sucky journalism and embodies pretty much everything I hate about MSM abortion coverage:
1. pretending to be neutral -- while hawking anti-abortion propaganda
2. The “view from nowhere” -- dude legit does not care what happens with this law, didn’t quote any pregnant people or OBGYNs or anyone who might be affected
3. Focus on predicting election outcomes
4. But really it’s just a bunch of cheap access quotes -- I have no opinion so I asked these people who are all political consultants.
5. Tone deaf to criticism -- a male reporter writing on abortion who won’t listen to feminist writer when critiqued. Bro! Just listen! (disclaimer I am a dude).
Yes to all of that. I oscillate between thinking MSM is just past its sell-by date and is irrelevant, and thinking it's actively harmful. I suspect older people are more likely to stick with legacy media (TV and brand name newspapers), so it may also be true that they're just following their audience, which skews more conservative. But then following instead of leading is also the problem here.
As to today's post, I think who the audience is matters. To those of us who are already deeply engaged on the issue, it's salient to point out the enemy's tactics and the effect they're having. But there's also an inside baseball aspect to it, and I don't want that to become the story for the general audience. Their narrative is that Democrats are pedantic and fundamentally unserious, so it very much suits them to have us be the language police, instead of spending the last two weeks of the campaign talking about women who needed care beyond 15 weeks and weren't able to get it (or weren't able to get it in their own state). My general advice is figure out what they want to talk about, and what they don't want to talk about, and then stay away from the former and go after the latter. Also always be conscious of the stereotype they're pushing about who you are, and then go out of your way not to be that person because that's much more challenging for them.
Yes. I think MSM has a trickle down effect which is that people see a headline and they tell their less informed contacts about it. Almost no one reads the articles but they do contribute to our shared perception of how things are going (tho they don’t want to acknowledge their role and failures -- see public perceptions of how our economy is doing etc.).
The good/bad news is that the MSM is dying. I hope they will be replaced by more ProPublica and investigation-first outlets and non-profit journalism endowments. I love some of the Substack writers but I don’t think it’s a sustainable model especially for such important issues. I’d love to see a resurgence of passionate journalism that challenges the powerful. There are so many good journalists, they just need better companies.
Yes, the powerful spend their wealth and power to protect their wealth and power, so it's hard to get good journalism from a for-profit endeavor. But you need a way to generate the resources for investigation and reporting. It's a problem everywhere.
Gaslighters naturally gaslight. It's why they're so fucking exhausting. They don't have to work hard or think too much. They are naturally liars who believe their lies. We should literally call them liars at every possible opportunity and tell real stories about how these bans impact real people. How many stories have we already seen of "I thought I qualified for an exception, only to find out exceptions aren't real"?
Yes, that last sentence. Although to today's point, I wouldn't use too much breath actually calling them liars; voters tune that out. Much better just to demonstrate, at every possible opportunity, that the truth is something different from what they're saying :)
Oh but it feels SO GOOD to call them liars. :) Before I knew what gaslighting was, I called it "revisionist history." As in "Why are you using this revisionist history when you know this didn't happen/I didn't say that/you said or did this/you mean this or that/or whatever?" It was more polite than calling them liars. Not that this matters to the overall discussion. It simply felt good to type that they're liars again.
Yeah, I hear you :) What I like is when they squirm. When they have a plan for how something is going to go, and then it doesn't go that way at all, and they have to think on their feet, and they can't do it. That's actually a strength of Trump's; his ability to bullshit a line in any situation, even if it's not relevant to the conversation, makes him look like he's never flustered. But besides that, I'm just trying to always think: what's their narrative? What are we doing that fits into that and helps feed it? That's usually the worst thing, falling into that trap, because that's what they're expecting, that's where they're ready for us, that's their comfort zone. If the Republicans can make enough voters believe that the Democrats are who they say we are, they'll win this election. I just hope we find a way not to play along.
WaPo where only one writer calls the reality of it, a former republican woman name of Jennifer Rubin. She has been calling them "forced Birthers", for years now.
Because Sally Busbee (the executive Editor) is a right wing republican, and the newly ousted publisher (Fred Ryan) was a Reagan fellow. They have been coasting on their former reputation for several years now, todays WaPo would never publish "The Pentagon Papers" because it would make their side look bad.
It must be a hell hole for girls and women living in a state that BANS abortions. After you vote against all Republicans in the next election, if republicans win, you should try your hardest to move to a state that has a constitutional amendment to protect women's right to make her own decisions. Why would anyone let her daughter attend a college in a red state? That is really playing with fire.
Recently reupped my WaPo subscription, but now rethinking that decision. Good for you, Jessica, for calling out Michael Scherer!
At least the overwhelming majority of WaPo commenters on the article called him out for carrying water for the extremists and pointed out that Republicans are liars.
Michael.Scherer@washingtonpost.com
I did email him. He did respond and claims he’s using Youngkin’s words so it is “both sided” journalism. He also says the dictionary states that ban and limit describe the same thing. He was very condescending in his response to me like I’m some little kid that needs simple explanations to understand why he wrote what he wrote. Anyway, vomit! Y’all need to email him too. That would be fun. Also, I’m going to get rid of my WaPo subscription.
Really? So why didn't the arrogant aashole also put LIMIT in scare quotes? What a complete loser. I'm glad you wrote him though!
Thank you Jessica. Wishing you well on your journey and speaking engagement.
Walls are only walls if no one can climb over them.
Stop signs are only stop signs if no one ever gets to go.
Bans are only bans if you can prove no one could ever get access?
This is madness.
As a gaslighting victim, this constant gaslighting from the right is infuriating. But we expose it by showing what they mean. I’ve spent a ton of time of IG talking about what R’s say versus what they mean. They mean ban, whatever word salad they say. And this is what bans mean at 6 weeks and 12 weeks and 15 weeks, and show real victims. Tell their stories. And at the end of every story, ask the viewer how they would feel if this was their wife mother sister aunt daughter niece etc. Because that outcome is what they mean. It’s their goal for every person who can be pregnant in America.
Also stop subscribing to WaPo. Just stop. I stopped reading that publication the second Amazon bought it. They have put conservatives in key positions, and they are either going to turn it into a conservative rag or kill it. I don’t really think the billionaire at the top cares which happens. It’s more important to support publications like Abortion Every Day.
🎯
'show real victims; tell their stories.' Yes. This. It should be so simple. But in a way it's not, because we have to do more work than name-calling. But that's okay. We're never going to beat a bully in a contest of name-calling anyway.
WaPo has been trash on abortion coverage for the past few years. I expect very little from them!!
It’s also freaking annoying that the WaPo journalist got so defensive. Maybe take a beat and have a listen. Do some research and think about how you’re using language. Journalists of all people should be *very* careful about their language and so often they aren’t. It’s incredible.
I'm sure they have their "orders". Last year they won three prestigious journalism awards, two of the three writers had quit by the time they were awarded.
This article is dumb AND it also hits another major pet peeve of mine with abortion coverage in that it is written in the crappy “view from nowhere” where authors pretend they are immune from any consequences we mortals might face and they’re just doing sports coverage. I hate it!
That’s a good description of it. And it’s totally maddening.
Yep. https://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
And thank you, Jessica, as always for holding the line!!!
I completely agree with the sentiment here. But this is a trap. One of the reasons conservatives are so good at politics is they get their opponents to go on wild goose chases and look foolish. They want to argue about language because it's a distraction from talking about who can't get care. Every minute wasted is precious time and so it's a win for them. The more abstract the debate, the better it is for them. The ONLY thing we should talking about are the stories of real people suffering under these laws. If a 15 week 'limit' polls better than a 15 week 'ban' (and I'm sure it does), that means we aren't doing our job. It's the EFFECT of these policies, spelled out in as graphic detail as possible, that matters, not what we call them. It's tempting to take shortcuts, but that's ultimately a losing strategy. They're counting on us to fall into their traps. Yeah language matters. It's persuasive. It's how the new House speaker got elected. He's as extreme as any Republican anywhere, he'll do everything he can to take all of your rights away, but apparently he makes sure to be very very polite and 'civil' while doing it. That's the point. They can, and will, change how they talk about it. They won't change what they're doing, and that's where the focus needs to be. 'There is a truth here; that's what needs reporting.'
I agree with you that consequences should always be the focus. As NYU professor Jay Rosen says report “not the odds, but the stakes.”
I think Jessica’s point is “they are using language to hide the consequences of their actions and pay attention. And I think that is an effective way to highlight stakes (ex: they know their bills are so bad and dangerous they are trying to rebrand them--don’t fall for it...)
This WaPo article is an *exemplar* of sucky journalism and embodies pretty much everything I hate about MSM abortion coverage:
1. pretending to be neutral -- while hawking anti-abortion propaganda
2. The “view from nowhere” -- dude legit does not care what happens with this law, didn’t quote any pregnant people or OBGYNs or anyone who might be affected
3. Focus on predicting election outcomes
4. But really it’s just a bunch of cheap access quotes -- I have no opinion so I asked these people who are all political consultants.
5. Tone deaf to criticism -- a male reporter writing on abortion who won’t listen to feminist writer when critiqued. Bro! Just listen! (disclaimer I am a dude).
🤮 🤮 🤮
Yes to all of that. I oscillate between thinking MSM is just past its sell-by date and is irrelevant, and thinking it's actively harmful. I suspect older people are more likely to stick with legacy media (TV and brand name newspapers), so it may also be true that they're just following their audience, which skews more conservative. But then following instead of leading is also the problem here.
As to today's post, I think who the audience is matters. To those of us who are already deeply engaged on the issue, it's salient to point out the enemy's tactics and the effect they're having. But there's also an inside baseball aspect to it, and I don't want that to become the story for the general audience. Their narrative is that Democrats are pedantic and fundamentally unserious, so it very much suits them to have us be the language police, instead of spending the last two weeks of the campaign talking about women who needed care beyond 15 weeks and weren't able to get it (or weren't able to get it in their own state). My general advice is figure out what they want to talk about, and what they don't want to talk about, and then stay away from the former and go after the latter. Also always be conscious of the stereotype they're pushing about who you are, and then go out of your way not to be that person because that's much more challenging for them.
Yes. I think MSM has a trickle down effect which is that people see a headline and they tell their less informed contacts about it. Almost no one reads the articles but they do contribute to our shared perception of how things are going (tho they don’t want to acknowledge their role and failures -- see public perceptions of how our economy is doing etc.).
The good/bad news is that the MSM is dying. I hope they will be replaced by more ProPublica and investigation-first outlets and non-profit journalism endowments. I love some of the Substack writers but I don’t think it’s a sustainable model especially for such important issues. I’d love to see a resurgence of passionate journalism that challenges the powerful. There are so many good journalists, they just need better companies.
Yes, the powerful spend their wealth and power to protect their wealth and power, so it's hard to get good journalism from a for-profit endeavor. But you need a way to generate the resources for investigation and reporting. It's a problem everywhere.
Why does it seem like the anti-choice crowd ALWAYS has the initiative? It is infuriating.
Gaslighters naturally gaslight. It's why they're so fucking exhausting. They don't have to work hard or think too much. They are naturally liars who believe their lies. We should literally call them liars at every possible opportunity and tell real stories about how these bans impact real people. How many stories have we already seen of "I thought I qualified for an exception, only to find out exceptions aren't real"?
Yes, that last sentence. Although to today's point, I wouldn't use too much breath actually calling them liars; voters tune that out. Much better just to demonstrate, at every possible opportunity, that the truth is something different from what they're saying :)
Oh but it feels SO GOOD to call them liars. :) Before I knew what gaslighting was, I called it "revisionist history." As in "Why are you using this revisionist history when you know this didn't happen/I didn't say that/you said or did this/you mean this or that/or whatever?" It was more polite than calling them liars. Not that this matters to the overall discussion. It simply felt good to type that they're liars again.
Yeah, I hear you :) What I like is when they squirm. When they have a plan for how something is going to go, and then it doesn't go that way at all, and they have to think on their feet, and they can't do it. That's actually a strength of Trump's; his ability to bullshit a line in any situation, even if it's not relevant to the conversation, makes him look like he's never flustered. But besides that, I'm just trying to always think: what's their narrative? What are we doing that fits into that and helps feed it? That's usually the worst thing, falling into that trap, because that's what they're expecting, that's where they're ready for us, that's their comfort zone. If the Republicans can make enough voters believe that the Democrats are who they say we are, they'll win this election. I just hope we find a way not to play along.
So give us the reporter's email and galvanize us to write! You know we will.
WaPo where only one writer calls the reality of it, a former republican woman name of Jennifer Rubin. She has been calling them "forced Birthers", for years now.
In case anyone is not familiar with her writing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/05/forced-birth-abortion/
Great article. Thanks for sharing.
This is infuriating. WaPo is basically dancing on the necks of traumatized women.
Because Sally Busbee (the executive Editor) is a right wing republican, and the newly ousted publisher (Fred Ryan) was a Reagan fellow. They have been coasting on their former reputation for several years now, todays WaPo would never publish "The Pentagon Papers" because it would make their side look bad.