I found this piece during a search in my editing class (where else?). It revolves around some of the comments Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made during her recent appearance on "Meet the Press". It revolves around some statements she made about the debate between the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers. Some of the things she said rang true, such as the debate about when life begins (conception or otherwise), but other things mentioned, such as using theology to justify a pro-life position, came off the wrong way. There was some outcry and backlash.
To be honest, it took me a few reads for me to really grasp the concepts. The writing was not the most fluent, but once I read it a few times, it started to sink in. I'll give the author credit for writing a well-crafted article.
This is a tricky editorial to write, but I really do think the author did well with a sensitive subject. The issue is a very easy one for the media to choose to chastise a political candidate for their beliefs. Whatever one thinks about the issue of abortion, it is, in my opinion, wrong to bring religion into the political realm (I actually had a conversation with someone about this last weekend), and those who do should suffer the backlash. This editorial was careful though, and that is why it worked. It's words were chosen wisely.
To be honest, it took me a few reads for me to really grasp the concepts. The writing was not the most fluent, but once I read it a few times, it started to sink in. I'll give the author credit for writing a well-crafted article.
This is a tricky editorial to write, but I really do think the author did well with a sensitive subject. The issue is a very easy one for the media to choose to chastise a political candidate for their beliefs. Whatever one thinks about the issue of abortion, it is, in my opinion, wrong to bring religion into the political realm (I actually had a conversation with someone about this last weekend), and those who do should suffer the backlash. This editorial was careful though, and that is why it worked. It's words were chosen wisely.
3 comments:
If you keep politics and religion in separate realms, where do you put journalism?
Teehee funny title
I think the most interesting part of this editorial was the last line, "Pelosi should discuss theology with her priest, not with Tom Brokaw."
As journalists we're taught to avoid biased, thus excluding our personal political, religious, etc. views from our reporting, writing and editing. However, let's say you're conducting an interview and you need to play the Devil's advocate in order to get the person you're interviewing to comment on the opposite position. If you're Tom Brokaw and you're interviewing Nancy Pelosi about abortion, how do you ask questions in way that makes it seem as though you're simply asking about the other side, not attacking based on personal beliefs? Especially when it comes to issues such as abortion, if you're interviewing somebody who feels passionately either way on the subject, they may become defensive when you question why they're opinions are they way they are. And once they're on the defensive the interview becomes more of a debate than an interview, making it seem as though your opinion is fueling your questions, even if that's not your intention.
Perhaps simply working in the field for an extended period of time means that you earn such credibility. I know Tom Brokaw's opinions on WWII, but not about abortion.
Furthermore, the issue of reporting on religion becomes extremely difficult when religion and politics cross paths. Abortion is an issue that can be examined from both a political and religious perspective. Is it fair to say that Nancy Pelosi shouldn't discuss such topics with Tom Brokaw considering that her constituents might want to know her opinions on the subject? Just because it is an in issue that can be debated from a religious standpoint doesn't mean that it won't influence policy.
Post a Comment