Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Scare tactics in full swing
Californians go to 'war' over Prop 8's gay-marriage ban: USA Today
Well folks, we've come a long way since the days of the Daisy Political Campaign Ad. Nuclear war is no longer the threat to our children, but it is gay marriage that will hurt our children in the end, according to Sonja Eddings Brown in her statement at the end of this article: "We really are at a cultural crossroads in America where we are going to be forced one way or another to decide whether the rights of children or the rights of gay adults are going to come first."
Before we get carried away, let's put her quote into context. What she is referring to is the fact that if gay marriage is legal, the behavior, as a legitimate lifestyle, will be taught in schools, and children will be exposed to the lifestyle at a young age. The piece of evidence cited for this is the fact that the court in Massachusetts ruled that parents do not have "the right to remove their second-graders from classes that required reading books such as King and King, which is about two princes marrying." In the end, Brown and others supporting Prop 8 in California have decided it is a matter of controlling what their children are exposed to.
I suppose my first issue with her argument would have to be the implication that children are never gay. There is clearly still a "nature versus nurture" debate, however there are plenty of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is usually determined (though not always recognized) quite early in life. To that end, I am curious what she thinks of the rights of gay children (if in fact, they exist in her mind) to learn about situations relevant to them, or what is more, the rights of all children to understand each other when their friends have a different orientation.
Misunderstanding or ignorance to a behavior can cause a lot of problems. Being a minority is hard enough, ask any person of color living in the United States, but being a minority that no one knows anything about can be extremely stressful. The ignorance is exactly what promotes stereotypes, because it is easier to imagine that a minority is a group rather than a bunch of individuals that share one commonality and lots of differences. On the other hand, being exposed to different behaviors and cultures makes it easier to understand that there is not one minority but several, and that they overlap. In a sense this makes the minority once again a part of the majority, the majority being composed of individuals instead of groups signified by commonalities.
This was a really long way of saying that I don't believe the rights of children and the rights of "gay adults" as Brown puts it are at odds. I further don't believe that teaching a child that a behavior exists will hurt that child. If a child is taught about being a doctor, does that mean that the child will want to become a doctor automatically? Of course it doesn't, and in the same way being taught about what a doctor does gives that child a better understanding of what happens when one goes to the doctor's office. Without this knowledge, a child could misunderstand the situation at the doctor's office, which could result in dislike or fear of doctors.
Why is exposure to differences so threatening to children then? What culture is it that we live in that we must protect our children from these differences? Don't we live in a diverse world and want to encourage our children to know and understand other cultures?
The right of "gay adults" (I'd like to point out that this identifies people who were once gay children) to get married could not have less to do with violating the rights of children. As for the rights of parents to decide what to expose their children to, it is difficult to say that the child will only be exposed to what the parents want him or her exposed to simply because there is a lack of control over the behavior of others. A child might be exposed to gay marriage (legal or otherwise) because a child in his or her class has parents that are gay.
Regardless of specifics, inevitably a child will be exposed to something displeasing to his or her parents. As in all other situations like this, would it be so difficult simply to talk to your child about the situation instead of sheltering him or her from it?
Finally, I would just like to say that equal rights should mean something in a country like the USA. It isn't enough to say that we shouldn't have gay marriage because it might be taught in schools. It isn't even enough to say that children will be exposed to gay marriage if it is legal and parents won't have a choice in the matter. If we can say that it will harm children to be exposed to such a thing, then there is a reason to worry. At this point, we can't say that it even might harm children. There is therefore NO REASON to ban gay marriage based on these principles.
Well folks, we've come a long way since the days of the Daisy Political Campaign Ad. Nuclear war is no longer the threat to our children, but it is gay marriage that will hurt our children in the end, according to Sonja Eddings Brown in her statement at the end of this article: "We really are at a cultural crossroads in America where we are going to be forced one way or another to decide whether the rights of children or the rights of gay adults are going to come first."
Before we get carried away, let's put her quote into context. What she is referring to is the fact that if gay marriage is legal, the behavior, as a legitimate lifestyle, will be taught in schools, and children will be exposed to the lifestyle at a young age. The piece of evidence cited for this is the fact that the court in Massachusetts ruled that parents do not have "the right to remove their second-graders from classes that required reading books such as King and King, which is about two princes marrying." In the end, Brown and others supporting Prop 8 in California have decided it is a matter of controlling what their children are exposed to.
I suppose my first issue with her argument would have to be the implication that children are never gay. There is clearly still a "nature versus nurture" debate, however there are plenty of studies that indicate that sexual orientation is usually determined (though not always recognized) quite early in life. To that end, I am curious what she thinks of the rights of gay children (if in fact, they exist in her mind) to learn about situations relevant to them, or what is more, the rights of all children to understand each other when their friends have a different orientation.
Misunderstanding or ignorance to a behavior can cause a lot of problems. Being a minority is hard enough, ask any person of color living in the United States, but being a minority that no one knows anything about can be extremely stressful. The ignorance is exactly what promotes stereotypes, because it is easier to imagine that a minority is a group rather than a bunch of individuals that share one commonality and lots of differences. On the other hand, being exposed to different behaviors and cultures makes it easier to understand that there is not one minority but several, and that they overlap. In a sense this makes the minority once again a part of the majority, the majority being composed of individuals instead of groups signified by commonalities.
This was a really long way of saying that I don't believe the rights of children and the rights of "gay adults" as Brown puts it are at odds. I further don't believe that teaching a child that a behavior exists will hurt that child. If a child is taught about being a doctor, does that mean that the child will want to become a doctor automatically? Of course it doesn't, and in the same way being taught about what a doctor does gives that child a better understanding of what happens when one goes to the doctor's office. Without this knowledge, a child could misunderstand the situation at the doctor's office, which could result in dislike or fear of doctors.
Why is exposure to differences so threatening to children then? What culture is it that we live in that we must protect our children from these differences? Don't we live in a diverse world and want to encourage our children to know and understand other cultures?
The right of "gay adults" (I'd like to point out that this identifies people who were once gay children) to get married could not have less to do with violating the rights of children. As for the rights of parents to decide what to expose their children to, it is difficult to say that the child will only be exposed to what the parents want him or her exposed to simply because there is a lack of control over the behavior of others. A child might be exposed to gay marriage (legal or otherwise) because a child in his or her class has parents that are gay.
Regardless of specifics, inevitably a child will be exposed to something displeasing to his or her parents. As in all other situations like this, would it be so difficult simply to talk to your child about the situation instead of sheltering him or her from it?
Finally, I would just like to say that equal rights should mean something in a country like the USA. It isn't enough to say that we shouldn't have gay marriage because it might be taught in schools. It isn't even enough to say that children will be exposed to gay marriage if it is legal and parents won't have a choice in the matter. If we can say that it will harm children to be exposed to such a thing, then there is a reason to worry. At this point, we can't say that it even might harm children. There is therefore NO REASON to ban gay marriage based on these principles.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
What were they thinking writing that headline?
Australia can now sell 'date rape' toy
They were probably looking to attract readers, like any good tabloid I suppose, but the article only got worse after the headline.
"Australia's most populous state, New South Wales, has lifted a ban on a Chinese-made children’s toy, which converted to a dangerous chemical when eaten."
Sure, it's in past tense, but it leaves out a very important detail. The last paragraph of the article, where every good journalist knows he or she should put the least vital information, was this;
"New South Wales has taken the beads off the banned list because the toy company has assured authorities that Bindeez will no longer contain the chemical."
Is it just me, or should this assurance be put in the lead? From reading the rest of the article, you get the idea that the state of South Wales could care less about handing its children toys with unsafe chemicals. Obviously the toy company's word is all the state has before the toy is actually put on the shelves.
The journalist who wrote this clearly has a bit to learn about bias and story organization.
They were probably looking to attract readers, like any good tabloid I suppose, but the article only got worse after the headline.
"Australia's most populous state, New South Wales, has lifted a ban on a Chinese-made children’s toy, which converted to a dangerous chemical when eaten."
Sure, it's in past tense, but it leaves out a very important detail. The last paragraph of the article, where every good journalist knows he or she should put the least vital information, was this;
"New South Wales has taken the beads off the banned list because the toy company has assured authorities that Bindeez will no longer contain the chemical."
Is it just me, or should this assurance be put in the lead? From reading the rest of the article, you get the idea that the state of South Wales could care less about handing its children toys with unsafe chemicals. Obviously the toy company's word is all the state has before the toy is actually put on the shelves.
The journalist who wrote this clearly has a bit to learn about bias and story organization.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Associated Press V. Al Jazeera; a showdown over U.S. politics in Iraq
Al Jazeera Article
Associated Press Article
With all I've heard about the anti-American attitude of Al Jazeera I was extremely surprised to see an article almost identical, and perhaps less biased than the Associated Press version.
"The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January."
This comment from the AP article threw me off because it sounds like the they're making the Democrats out to be incompetent. However, as mentioned in the Al Jazeera article:
"Unlike an earlier version the house passed last month, this bill would not set a firm date for all US combat troops to leave the war. Instead, a nonbinding March 31 date for finishing the withdrawal merely would be a "target"."
The Democratic majority already passed a bill that was an obvious challenge on the war, more so than the current bill, and are now showing a willingness to compromise by passing one with more elbow room for the Bush administration.
Headlines
I thought the different headlines were interesting here. The majority are right on with the news, but there are certainly a few non-opinion (haha) headlines that speculate the veto of Bush (yes, I know he said he would, but regardless I don't think this SF Gate sort of a headline is appropriate).
Associated Press Article
With all I've heard about the anti-American attitude of Al Jazeera I was extremely surprised to see an article almost identical, and perhaps less biased than the Associated Press version.
"The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January."
This comment from the AP article threw me off because it sounds like the they're making the Democrats out to be incompetent. However, as mentioned in the Al Jazeera article:
"Unlike an earlier version the house passed last month, this bill would not set a firm date for all US combat troops to leave the war. Instead, a nonbinding March 31 date for finishing the withdrawal merely would be a "target"."
The Democratic majority already passed a bill that was an obvious challenge on the war, more so than the current bill, and are now showing a willingness to compromise by passing one with more elbow room for the Bush administration.
Headlines
I thought the different headlines were interesting here. The majority are right on with the news, but there are certainly a few non-opinion (haha) headlines that speculate the veto of Bush (yes, I know he said he would, but regardless I don't think this SF Gate sort of a headline is appropriate).
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
What will happen to Roe v. Wade?
Court Backs Abortion Ban
I'm not sure that the lead for this article displayed both sides of the conflict in an accurate manner. First by labeling the Supreme Court's majority vote as "conservative" they are ultimately implying that all conservative efforts are anti-abortion. Secondly, by saying the decision "set the stage for further restrictions" to abortion, it seems as though someones opinion creeped into the lead, rather than the other side of the conflict. The abortion rights efforts were not necessarily mentioned in the lead directly, though it might be implied that there are those efforts otherwise there would be no court case in the first place. Still, I think that the lead showed more of one side of the story than the other.
Further on in the article, one needs to read all the way to the twelfth paragraph before hearing a comment from the abortion rights' side of the story, which seems a long way down, especially considering the first lack of mention in the lead. It also mentions all five of the Supreme Court Justices who supported the decision, as well as President Bush before introducing a source who opposed the decision. Overall, it seemed as though the conflict was unbalanced, simply through the story organization.
The full text of the decision of Gonzales v. Carhart can be found here at www.findlaw.com
I'm not sure that the lead for this article displayed both sides of the conflict in an accurate manner. First by labeling the Supreme Court's majority vote as "conservative" they are ultimately implying that all conservative efforts are anti-abortion. Secondly, by saying the decision "set the stage for further restrictions" to abortion, it seems as though someones opinion creeped into the lead, rather than the other side of the conflict. The abortion rights efforts were not necessarily mentioned in the lead directly, though it might be implied that there are those efforts otherwise there would be no court case in the first place. Still, I think that the lead showed more of one side of the story than the other.
Further on in the article, one needs to read all the way to the twelfth paragraph before hearing a comment from the abortion rights' side of the story, which seems a long way down, especially considering the first lack of mention in the lead. It also mentions all five of the Supreme Court Justices who supported the decision, as well as President Bush before introducing a source who opposed the decision. Overall, it seemed as though the conflict was unbalanced, simply through the story organization.
The full text of the decision of Gonzales v. Carhart can be found here at www.findlaw.com
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Controversial article to begin with, but...
Pas de Deux of Sexuality, New York Times
The scientific studies he cited were almost all correlational, and therefore inconclusive. Relying so heavily on simply correlational studies makes for an interesting read, but certainly a weak foundation for the article. It seems like he came to a biased conclusion based on the inconclusive data. If he had taken another angle, and perhaps introduced the topic as the sexual nature of the brain including studies of what makes sexual orientation, it would have been better focused, and certainly easier to follow, but instead it seems like he almost wanted to make it controversial. I guess controversy grabs more readers than simply talking about different scientific studies that have inconclusively linked homosexuality with pre-birth brain development in men. It might have been easier for a reader to draw his or her own conclusion with a more neutral angle, at least until more conclusive research has been conducted.
This comment of his made me wonder:
"This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form."
Sounds like he's certainly "proud" of his Y chromosome, and certainly wanted his reproductive tissue to be "sidetracked from its ovarian fate."
Interestingly, one of the experts he cited is an MSU professor, whose website is here: The Breedlove Jordan Lab
The scientific studies he cited were almost all correlational, and therefore inconclusive. Relying so heavily on simply correlational studies makes for an interesting read, but certainly a weak foundation for the article. It seems like he came to a biased conclusion based on the inconclusive data. If he had taken another angle, and perhaps introduced the topic as the sexual nature of the brain including studies of what makes sexual orientation, it would have been better focused, and certainly easier to follow, but instead it seems like he almost wanted to make it controversial. I guess controversy grabs more readers than simply talking about different scientific studies that have inconclusively linked homosexuality with pre-birth brain development in men. It might have been easier for a reader to draw his or her own conclusion with a more neutral angle, at least until more conclusive research has been conducted.
This comment of his made me wonder:
"This dominant gene, the Y chromosome’s proudest and almost only possession, sidetracks the reproductive tissue from its ovarian fate and switches it into becoming testes. Hormones from the testes, chiefly testosterone, mold the body into male form."
Sounds like he's certainly "proud" of his Y chromosome, and certainly wanted his reproductive tissue to be "sidetracked from its ovarian fate."
Interestingly, one of the experts he cited is an MSU professor, whose website is here: The Breedlove Jordan Lab
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Iraqis Protest Peacefully
Washington Post Article
New York Times Article
The difference in leads struck me here. Both leads included powerful imagery in addition to the hard news, but the New York Times article put emphasis on the news before introducing the imagery and the Washington Post put the imagery first. I wonder whether NYT made the decision to emphasize news because of the powerful image above the story, which gives the imagery in a different way, whereas the Washington Post lacked a picture and therefore needed to establish the nature of the protest before telling why it happened. Other than the organizational difference, the leads were essentially identical.
The stories also both included an observation that the crowd, supporting a Shiite Muslim, did not only consist of Shiites, but also of Sunni politicians. The New York Times article introduced this in their seventh paragraph, while the Washington Post article, once again emphasizing the imagery in much of the story, put it in the thirteenth paragraph. This interested me for a few reasons. The first was because though the protest is certainly news in and of itself, almost second to that seems that it was a peaceful political demonstration at which both Shiites and Sunnis were present. This is close to unheard of, since the groups are so forcefully divided politically. It seems to me that this fact should have been introduced much sooner than either of the stories introduced it, perhaps even in the lead. Sure, it would mean sacrificing the imagery elements, but I think that with the ability of photography to tell the visual part of the story, it might have been unnecessary to introduce it in the lead to begin with.
On a side note:
Associated Press Article
I wonder if the protest will have an effect on White House policies. The basis of the democratic society is that government must pay attention to the citizens, otherwise the right to protest is meaningless. Since the US government is occupying, shouldn't they be just as accountable to the citizens of Iraq as the Iraqi government? I would ask the US government to uphold their ideal of democracy and give the Iraqis what they're asking for, or if not to that extreme, at least take a less intrusive role in Iraq's government. I believe that the atmosphere in the Middle East is electric because of the US preaching democracy and then taking the role of imperialists. It's time the US practiced what they preach.
New York Times Article
The difference in leads struck me here. Both leads included powerful imagery in addition to the hard news, but the New York Times article put emphasis on the news before introducing the imagery and the Washington Post put the imagery first. I wonder whether NYT made the decision to emphasize news because of the powerful image above the story, which gives the imagery in a different way, whereas the Washington Post lacked a picture and therefore needed to establish the nature of the protest before telling why it happened. Other than the organizational difference, the leads were essentially identical.
The stories also both included an observation that the crowd, supporting a Shiite Muslim, did not only consist of Shiites, but also of Sunni politicians. The New York Times article introduced this in their seventh paragraph, while the Washington Post article, once again emphasizing the imagery in much of the story, put it in the thirteenth paragraph. This interested me for a few reasons. The first was because though the protest is certainly news in and of itself, almost second to that seems that it was a peaceful political demonstration at which both Shiites and Sunnis were present. This is close to unheard of, since the groups are so forcefully divided politically. It seems to me that this fact should have been introduced much sooner than either of the stories introduced it, perhaps even in the lead. Sure, it would mean sacrificing the imagery elements, but I think that with the ability of photography to tell the visual part of the story, it might have been unnecessary to introduce it in the lead to begin with.
On a side note:
Associated Press Article
I wonder if the protest will have an effect on White House policies. The basis of the democratic society is that government must pay attention to the citizens, otherwise the right to protest is meaningless. Since the US government is occupying, shouldn't they be just as accountable to the citizens of Iraq as the Iraqi government? I would ask the US government to uphold their ideal of democracy and give the Iraqis what they're asking for, or if not to that extreme, at least take a less intrusive role in Iraq's government. I believe that the atmosphere in the Middle East is electric because of the US preaching democracy and then taking the role of imperialists. It's time the US practiced what they preach.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)