Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (21324)	12/24/2003 1:33:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) of 793759

So you think that my criticism is "lame"? Interesting..... I never called your criticism lame. What you posted was an opinion piece from a site called timeswatch. Their criticism was IMO lame. <<New York Times reporters Katharine Seelye and Janet Elder typically identify the "religious right" Traditional Values Coalition and the "conservative" Concerned Women for America and then, on the libertine left, they describe the Human Rights Campaign as only a "gay rights group." This is an old pattern of highlighting the “religious right” and presenting gay groups as utterly nonpartisan and nonideological – just reasonable advocates for overdue fairness and equality.>> They're complaining that TVC was labeled as "religious right and CWA was labeled "conservative" whereas HRC was labeled "gay rights." What in the world is the problem with that? Are the labels inaccurate? Don't think so. Were they unbalanced. I don't see how. The three labels attributed were common labels given to the three common categories of special interests. What should the authors have said instead? I went to the web sites of the three groups and looked at how they characterized themselves. TVA is definitely religious and definitely right. From how they describe themselves, they might prefer "Christian values" but that wouldn't be accurate because the liberal Christian denominations feature a different stet of Christian values so the label would have to make that distinction. Seems to me that "religous right" is a pretty good choice. CWA describes itself: "Coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values and family traditions." So the authors shortened that to "conservative." I don't see anything inaccurate about that. HRC says it lobbies for gay and lesbian rights. While gay rights organizations are always careful to include "lesbian," it's common for people outside the life to shorten it to "gay." As in CWA, I don't think shortening is unacceptable here. So, I wonder what labels Timeswatch would have used. What labels would you have used? Or would you have not characterized them at all and left your readers to research the groups themselves. I find this particular labeling issue right up there with "water buffalo" in the silliness of the PC claims of offense. The best way to be fair is to use the organizations' own words as much as one can. Every piece I ever wrote for dissemination always consulted the principles for descriptions. Seems to me they did that here. Seems to me that Timeswatch has it's own agenda. Better to stick with the image the principles want to project.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next