Category: Opinion

When a newspaper or television news outlet decides to spend excess amount of time reporting on a case – usually a criminal case – it’s not uncommon for competitors to follow suit and report on the same case as not to be outdone. It’s a classic snowball effect, and someone like Casey Anthony becomes a household name as a result.

But what happens when something equally, if not far more chilling happens, but the cameras aren’t focused in that direction? Take the cases of Linda Ann Weston and also Kermit Gosnell out of Philadelphia, for example. Weston is accused of kidnapping and holding mentally disabled people in dungeons – for years – to collect their Social Security checks (amongst other crimes). Gosnell operated an unregulated abortion clinic out of Philadelphia for decades, drugging and sometimes killing patients, while delivering babies and shoving scissors into their necks (amongst other crimes). This is Jeffrey Dahmer-level sickness, served on a platter for media outlets to cover and certain to become objects of readers’ attention. But it’s hard to find anything about these cases without setting up a Google News Alert.

Why wouldn’t there be more coverage of these cases, when other things get over-covered? Surely, editors know about them, but make a decision not to send reporters. While they may use budgets and staff shortages as an excuse, this rule gets broken all too often, especially when everyone else is covering the same thing.

I can’t help but view this as incompetence, and even bias, in the news industry.

UPDATE:

I wrote this post on Jan. 29, 2013. On April 12, my employer finally decided to cover the Kermit Gosnell trial.

Martin Baron, executive editor of the Post, tells the Erik Wemple Blog:

We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.

I had a roommate (the most disgusting and inconsiderate person I ever lived with, but that’s a different story), who got into the habit of watching religious programming. One night, the preacher was discussing homosexuality, loudly offering theories as to why folks are homosexual, citing things like the prenatal hormones theory while condemning it.

I can neither confirm nor deny the science behind these studies, but I’d venture to say that the preacher was using any info he had to further his cause against homosexuality, without citing evidence to the contrary or other theories that could be true.

And why would he? Likely influenced by selective biblical passages, he took the logical next step of embracing theories as to ‘what went wrong.’ Telling him otherwise would virtually be pointless because it doesn’t fit the ending that he’s believes, so he’d simply dismiss you as the opposition, who carries no credibility.

Put a controversial stance on the table, one that you are either for or against in its extreme. Now ask yourself: Is there even a single point against your view that is valid? If the answer is no, then congrats, you’re really no different than the preacher.

(Perhaps there are some exceptions. Despite thousands of years of slavery, I can’t think of a single ‘pro’ that its supporters can make that is worthy of consideration. But slavery is no longer a divisive issue so let’s just say times have changed for the better.)

I can think of four reasons why someone would be against gay marriage or even the general acceptance of homosexual people. One is that they’re motivated by religion, and selective religious passages, as per the example above. Another is blatant hatred, the same way someone would hate an entire race of people or a religion. The third is misinformation, which I believe is most likely to happen to younger folks who draw conclusions based on what they hear from their peers (people tend to grow out of this). The last reason is that some folks seem to be staunchly motivated by the dictionary (perhaps in conjunction with religious reasons), which defines marriage as  being between a man and a woman. Hate to break it to folks, but dictionary definitions change over time. Somehow faggot went from being a twig to a gay slur.

Those who are opposed to gay marriage based solely on the hatred of homosexuals may just be angry, bitter people and not easy to reason with. Those who oppose it based on religious beliefs certainly won’t be convinced otherwise by opposing protesters. Those who are grasping their dictionaries, refusing to let it be changed, should focus their attention on more important things.

Never mind that many Americans are smart enough to weigh the pros and cons of issues, understanding drawbacks of certain plans while still embracing them. This is about believing in something in its extreme. The legality of gay marriage can’t possibly be intrusive in their lives, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument against it. Yet there they are, fighting it, the same way people fought against the civil rights movement.

Like with slavery supporters or ‘separate but equal’ enthusiasts, the opponents of gay marriage will shrink over time, and future generations will look back in disbelief that so many people opposed it to begin with. But there will always be opposition, and those people will continue to fight their losing battle, or at least believe they’re right… and no argument can be made that will convince them otherwise.

During an election year, people more frequently voice their opinions, particularly using social networks like Facebook. While freedom of speech is a good thing, those who take advantage also expose themselves to the drawbacks. If politicians used the same wording as random folks on the Internet, or even professional writers who get paid to create controversy, it would be career suicide.

I’m not sure if these people understand or care that the arguments they make are often obnoxious and riddled with logical fallacies. They thrive in setting up straw men and burning them down. They act as though they’re irrefutably right. Meanwhile, those who are exposed to these opinions and happen to disagree (or simply find flaws in the logic) have their own choice to make… ignore them, argue with them, end the friendship, etc. One thing is for certain – someone who suddenly starts voicing controversial opinions will change how people perceive them, whether they care or not, for better or worse.

The opinions typically come from either the extreme left or the extreme right. Moderates and sensible people who understand that even their own opinions have valid counter arguments don’t make as much noise. This isn’t to say that those on either side aren’t making valid points, but it’s often the case that they’re being obnoxious and withholding facts that deserve a mention. None of this is new in the world of debates and arguing, it’s just more apparent since the Internet has given more people a virtual megaphone.

One of the most infuriating things to me is listening to people who have a complete misunderstanding, or unwillingness to understand, the opposition’s position. This isn’t to say that the opposition can’t be completely illogical too, but those who refuse to even try to understand how others can think differently – and then judge them for it – have no credibility themselves. If you’re going to disagree with someone, disagree for the right reasons, a direct rebuttal of their argument, not a misrepresentation of what they believe.

My advice: If you insist on loudly voicing your opinions on controversial issues, but refuse to try to understand the opposition’s reasoning and instead fill in the gaps with your own unfounded claims, at least be self aware enough to realize that others will notice and in return, judge you for that.

Sometimes, simple quotes or proverbs make for the best foundations for political positions. I’ll leave you with two of my favorites. If you agree with them, see if they really do sync up with your opinions on the election or life in general.

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

– Chinese Proverb

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

– John F. Kennedy

About a dozen years ago, a 45-year-old woman disappeared. The story made the local television news and made the newspapers. Her name was reported. She was never found.

Fast forward to 2011. An acquaintance of this woman was arrested, accused of raping her daughter back in 2000. Still not charged with the woman’s disappearance, the man was soon sentenced to 128 years for rape. There may not have been enough evidence to charge him with the disappearance, though he matches the composite sketches drawn up in 2000, and he certainly had a motive. Regardless, he was not charged in a court of law with this woman’s disappearance, and likely never will be.

The rape victim’s name will not be reported to protect her identity, which is standard.

At the same time, for those following along, this leaves the story incomplete. Anyone paying attention to the case of the missing woman will likely never learn that the prime suspect has been arrested and sentenced for a crime against her daughter. To name the woman now would be just as bad as naming the daughter, whose identity must be protected.

A number of folks in this town know about the connection, but it won’t be reported, leaving many others in the dark. And with good reason.

We are more likely to be successful when our efforts are concentrated on what we can control than what we cannot. Spending our time focussed on blaming the consequences instead of altering the cause of them is more apt to result in failure. Just watch a hockey player argue with a ref over a hooking call.

When you drink and drive, then crash your car, what do you do? Lobby the auto industry to create vehicles that are easier to drive while intoxicated? Write to your congressman about the poor road conditions for driving while intoxicated? Complain to the auto insurance company about unfair rate hikes?

But, drinking and driving is illegal, and few would argue against that. However, even if it weren’t illegal, the repercussions would still exist. You could crash your car and hurt/kill yourself. You could kill someone else. Simply speaking, actions, whether legal or illegal, have consequences.

A 21-year-old woman goes to a frat party, gets drunk, and passes out. She realizes in the morning that she has been raped, and doesn’t know who did it. It is not illegal to go to a frat party, get drunk and pass out, so unlike drunk driving, she didn’t do anything wrong. The person to blame is the one who did the assaulting. To prevent this incident in the future, what do we do? Demand that no one sexually assaults women anymore? Increase the penalty for rape? Require that parties involving alcohol, women and frat boys have a police presence? The woman has very little, if no control over the actions of others. She has complete control over her decision to go to the party and how much she drinks. Does this mean she is to blame for what happened to her? Was she ‘asking for it’? No. She doesn’t want to be raped no more than a drunk driver wants to crash into a tree and become paralyzed from the neck down. But either way, consequences win.

A frat boy attends a party. He drinks too much. He wakes in the morning and realizes that he had sex with a woman, who also drank too much. She is still passed out, so he leaves. The frat boy eventually finds out that he is HIV positive. Must’ve been that woman at the party. Who’s fault is it? The government, for not providing free contraception? Those bible thumpers for teaching him about abstinence? Or maybe it’s Ronald Reagan’s fault for how little he did to battle HIV/AIDS back in the 80s. I think you get the point.

I’m not saying there are no injustices. There are. There’s no error in judgment in a decision to go see a movie, only to get shot at. It’s worth the time to fight the good fight and to stick up for those who are being victimized, or to show some compassion and humanity every once in a while. Note the differences.

I write this because it’s becoming more apparent to me the distinction between those who live their life in such a way that gives them a huge advantage against dire consequences, and those who spend their time complaining about those consequences and demanding what they don’t necessarily deserve. While either side may provide valid points for the issues at hand, the odds of success are less likely without self-corrective action and compromise.