Abortion is too popular for both-sides journalism
It’s been like this since Phyllis Schafley fought the Equal Rights Amendment by saying we will have unisex bathrooms. Back then it was the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ the men would laugh at the women cat fighting. Here we are now. At least most men are now on our side!
Such an important post!!!! Thank you, Jessica!
If I never hear another interivew with Christina from Indiana who represents AAPLOG when journalists are 'both sides-ing' supposed facts and she's allowed to spout innacuraces and outright LIES with no check... yea, I'm exhausted of that.
I'm sick of journalists who think using lots of words makes them IMPORTANT. I'm sick of wading through blah, blah when concise writing would be more informative. I also want them to treat lies as lies, not something that should be treated nicely. In a high school journalism class we learned to report: Who, What, When, Where. To bad journalists now think palaver on the side should be included. I love words and think they are being abused through overuse.
I too feel the “two sides” approach brings out the worst in (mostly inexperienced) journalists and agree that the pro choice majority is woefully underreported, but on your recommendation I read the Washington Post article and didn’t think it was that bad. The fact that women will now choose colleges in locations where they can get health care spoke to an increased antiabortion climate and a misogynist culture that I felt the article paid attention to.
Bravo for giving coverage to the threat to democracy of Both Sides journalism. As well as women’s right to bodily autonomy, this has long been a danger in the fight fir climate action, vaccinations, and other issues where equal weight is undeservedly given to scientific denialism over scientific research.
I dare to suspect that it is not necessarily pure journalism ethics that keeps many mainstream newspapers from providing accurate coverage of these issues. Rather it reflects a financial desire to keep readership numbers up. This was a losing proposition the moment that self serving, bombastic, unqualified, self-styled leader and his ilk began instructing followers not to pay attention to any mainstream news sources. Follow the money and the devastating trail of those who thirst for power above all else.
Journalists don’t tend to take flat-earthers seriously yet have inexplicably chosen to provide equal coverage to opinions based on a centuries old constitution and a millennia old collection of folk tales that was abjured by the very person that ultra right-wing bigots profess to follow, the one who encouraged a life guided by compassionate charity towards all others, women and men.
Providing equal coverage validates the actions of a minority who have been manipulated into being the foot soldiers of those whose ultimate goal is to overwhelm the majority. When they actively and openly gerrymander voting district boundaries and legislate voting barriers to hold onto power, their actions are not democratic and every ethical news source should be united against them.
I’ve been so frustrated with the main corporate media regarding the “both sides” approach.
It’s good to present all the sides, but like this essay explains, they are lazy and do NOT give the facts that explain the context and actual reality on the ground.
Thank you Jessica Valenti for all your hard work!!
I think the 2009 PP attack in CO Springs killed 3 people and wounded 9 others, not killed 9.
It’s not just abortion. Because conservative religion is privileged even above the law in this country all women’s rights issues are discussed as though they are controversial. Misogyny is treated like a valid cultural value under the cover of religion or tradition.