Over the years, the media has come up with many monikers for different issues. Some are catchy, while others have been duds. But none is as controversial as Pro Choice.
Pro-Choice: a woman's right to choose. Not just anything, only her right to choose an abortion.
So, what's the other side of this debate portrayed as: Pro-Life.
In the realm of opposites, some one who is opposed to Pro-Life is anti-life, right!? I can't imagine anyone admitting to that. But in the fiercest of debates, many pro-choice supporters have expressed anti-life views. This is tragic.
The central issue is abortion. It is neither pro-choice or pro-life. It is not one's opinion or faith, it simply is a medical necessity. Like all medical procedures, it should only be performed when absolutely necessary and no other options exist.
Left media's arch enemy, Former President George W. Bush had put it elegantly - Abortion should be safe, legal & rare. Can any rational person argue with that?
Apparently, they can. And they have - through many law suits to such basic requirements as parental consent for under-aged minors, guidance counseling, etc. This is quite a travesty.
So, if a woman wants to say since it is my choice, I want to abort any pregnancy any time I want, I think we have a larger social dysfunction in place.
Pro-Choice is probably the worst moniker there is.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Big Bird
It has become a campaign issue. We are all supposed to be outraged by Romney's position on funding for public broadcasting. Really?
As we all know, commercial media reacts to financial incentives. Viewer preferences are conveyed through two means - ad revenues and Nielsen media survey. Discounting the small sampling of the survey compared to the ad revenues, we can be pretty sure that media execs know which shows are selling and which are not. We see this in action all the time as many shows fall bathe way side - if something is not watched, so are the ads not generating the revenue.
PBS has many quality shows. I watch them all the time. But we all are paying for it in entirely different fashion - forced through our tax dollars. Some are implying that that is the only way to have quality shows. That tells us something else about the society at large - that our priorities are misplaced.
And that is also the crux of this election year - our core values. This is about 2 very different paths we could choose. If we are too dumb to pick quality TV shows for our kids, are we smart enough to vote?
As we all know, commercial media reacts to financial incentives. Viewer preferences are conveyed through two means - ad revenues and Nielsen media survey. Discounting the small sampling of the survey compared to the ad revenues, we can be pretty sure that media execs know which shows are selling and which are not. We see this in action all the time as many shows fall bathe way side - if something is not watched, so are the ads not generating the revenue.
PBS has many quality shows. I watch them all the time. But we all are paying for it in entirely different fashion - forced through our tax dollars. Some are implying that that is the only way to have quality shows. That tells us something else about the society at large - that our priorities are misplaced.
And that is also the crux of this election year - our core values. This is about 2 very different paths we could choose. If we are too dumb to pick quality TV shows for our kids, are we smart enough to vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)