Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 159 of 159

Thread: NPR's Guidance Reminder: On Abortion Procedures, Terminology & Rights

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 8:21 PM
    Posts
    10,968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    You have abandoned the concept of neutral terminology and are simply arguing that every living human should be opposed to abortion and that is the default middle ground. Actually, "abandoned" is wrong. You haven't abandoned the concept, because you've never accepted it. Neutrality has nothing to do with majority. Neutral is not an average or a mean. It's not quantitative.
    There is no neutral terminology anymore. The left has made sure of that. Obama would have bit off his tongue before he used the words "Islamic terrorists".

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Posts
    8,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    You cannot expect to be taken serious if you include this in a comment on prejudicial language.
    How sweet the irony of your criticizing my own "style book" for prejudicing an argument.

    No, no, Normette, on this issue progressives are most assuredly NOT anti-abortion. If you have a windier classification, à la NPR's style book, or such as my own, which I used earlier, supporters of NY-type laws, enjoy. "Pro-abortion progressives" is clear, succinct and accurate in context (meaning it's compared to anti-abortion so-and-sos), and besides, it's alliterative, which means it can be taken serious.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  3. Likes scott, Michele liked this post
  4. #153
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,251
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I am not a journalist nor a politician attempting to find a middle ground - I get to have a decided opinion.
    Neutrality is not “middle ground.” That you, and others, equate the two shows how poisoned our political and social discourse has become.
    Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain.

    ~ Adam Serwer

  5. #154
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Posts
    8,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman
    To their way of thinking, "neutral" means "our side."
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark
    There is no neutral terminology anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo
    Neutrality is not “middle ground.”
    Actually I think it is, BJ. Or should be. The objective is to be impartial, disinterested and objective. The idea is to be an honest broker of facts, and let the audience decide any given issue.

    At its heart this "neutrality" requires a confidence in the electorate that many these days don't share. Hence the New York Times published some reporter's essay shortly before Trump was elected that argued journalists must abandon any pretense of objective political reporting in favor of attacking then-candidate Trump. Truth to Trump! you might say.

    And per Mark's comment, there are plenty of people who simply believe journalistic objectivity/disinterest/neutrality and so on, is an illusion, an impossible dream, or better, a propagandistic lie. Maybe that's true.

    Major news orgs haven't given up on that dream, though, even as they face a lot of heat and shunning from critics.

    Contracts and legal documents often begin with a "Definition of Terms." Here the sides seem unable to move past that preface. It may be impossible to achieve "neutrality" on controversies surrounding abortion.

    But where journalistic objectivity, disinterest, neutrality, impartiality, etc., are difficult, I think the media has an obligation to be candid about its position on a given issue.

    Now truth to tell, NPR only uses the word "neutrality" once in its entire style guide dictum:
    The most neutral language to refer to the death of a fetus during a crime is "fetal homicide."
    Nor does it use other words like impartial, balanced, non-partisan and so on. Yet if they haven't cited some journalist's mission statement here, it's clear that such a vision exists, and includes (the delusion of?) unbiased, "neutral" reporting as an essential journalistic standard.

    The trouble is, "neutral," to NPR, looks a whole lot like "we agree with us."
    Last edited by Newman; Saturday, May 25th, 2019 at 10:07 PM.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  6. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  7. #155
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Posts
    18,143
    Post Thanks / Like
    Neutrality is not “middle ground.” That you, and others, equate the two shows how poisoned our political and social discourse has become.
    I believe you have no idea of what this means.

    A "middle ground" is not a moral position. Pretty much by definition it's amoral. While that may upset some, it's a perfectly valid way of enacting compromise. "Neutrality" is a similar amoral exercise but it doesn't seek to persuade to one position or another. It's just a specific way of transferring information.

    The aim is to convey bare facts as known without interjecting opinion (which can and does go in every direction) by describing both sides of a controversy. In fact, there are often three or five sides to many issues. That you appear unaware of this is unsurprising.

    If you want to take the moral high ground, there are many ways to do that whether you are right or wrong. Conveying bare facts shouldn't be one of them if your purpose is information.

    People can decide for themselves.
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  8. Likes scott liked this post
  9. #156
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Posts
    12,809
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman
    "Pro-abortion progressives" is clear, succinct and accurate in context (meaning it's compared to anti-abortion so-and-sos), and besides, it's alliterative, which means it can be taken serious.
    The first time could be a mistake. But now you're lying.

    Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to "do crazy shit," but he thought McGahn did not tell him the specifics of the President's request because McGahn was trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.

  10. #157
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 7:50 AM
    Posts
    10,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    It's just a specific way of transferring information.

    The aim is to convey bare facts as known without interjecting opinion (which can and does go in every direction) by describing both sides of a controversy. In fact, there are often three or five sides to many issues.

    Except...…………… the purpose of "neutrality" is NOT to convey information. Opinion or facts.

  11. #158
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 16th, 2019 @ 8:48 PM
    Posts
    10,169
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I believe you have no idea of what this means.

    A "middle ground" is not a moral position. Pretty much by definition it's amoral. While that may upset some, it's a perfectly valid way of enacting compromise. "Neutrality" is a similar amoral exercise but it doesn't seek to persuade to one position or another. It's just a specific way of transferring information.

    The aim is to convey bare facts as known without interjecting opinion (which can and does go in every direction) by describing both sides of a controversy. In fact, there are often three or five sides to many issues. That you appear unaware of this is unsurprising.

    If you want to take the moral high ground, there are many ways to do that whether you are right or wrong. Conveying bare facts shouldn't be one of them if your purpose is information.

    People can decide for themselves.
    No, Bok says "reality has a liberal bias." That means he finds liberal bias to be based in reality.

    Seriously, the guy actually believes this.
    "What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

    link

    Time will tell.

  12. #159
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Posts
    4,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by scott View Post
    No, Bok says "reality has a liberal bias." That means he finds liberal bias to be based in reality.

    Seriously, the guy actually believes this.
    He's not alone. There are many out there who can't have a civil and factual discussion because Obama=Good and Trump=Evil. They not only can't defend their positions, they don't even try.

    You Tube video after you tube video shows Soy Boys whose only response when asked what it is , specifically , that Trump has done to offend the Senate and the People Of Rome is "Everything!".
    I'm thinking that once, in 1953, a group of interesting people just happened to be in a coffee shop at the same time and a great discussion of issues, ideas, and the meaning of life occurred. Since then we have been waiting at Starbucks for Lawrence Ferlinghetti to say something heavy.

  13. Likes scott, 80zephyr liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •