In my first week writing for Barrett Media, I learned that being a columnist is a lot like being a talk show host. No sooner do you plan an idea when the news cycle forces you to tear it up and start over.
This week, I absorbed a lot of talk radio covering the leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's initial draft opinion that could overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. So much of the discussion was the same, even predictable, from hour to hour, making it an excellent subject for reviewing how we frame topics.
When beginning to work with a talk show host, especially one who spends considerable time on political issues, I ask what their goal is for each show (aside from getting big ratings and making a lot of money)? What's more important; convincing people to join their side or entertaining? Too many shows are more intent on getting people to join the hosts' political battles than entertaining.
I can't say that I knew Rush Limbaugh well, but throughout his legendary career, I had meaningful conversations with him on a couple of occasions. One of those discussions was shortly after he came to New York. Rush impressed on me that his primary job was to entertain listeners. If he created a few new conservatives in the process, it was all the better, but he was clear that his first role was as an entertainer. There's no question that Rush believed in the power of his ideology and his ability to present it compellingly, but when in front of a microphone, he was an entertainer first.
The conservative shows shared common themes as the SCOTUS news broke. There was considerable focus on the leak itself. It was stated as a matter of fact that the occurrence would forever change the Supreme Court. Yet there was not much discussion on what would change. Are the justices canceling movie night? Are the conservative and liberal factions going to enter and exit through different doors? Now that the court is forever changed, what will be different?
Most hosts tried not to gloat about the coming victory instead they focused on why Roe was a poorly constructed decision in the first place. As proof, nearly every show quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the ruling. Better than Ginsburg's assessment might have been the words of Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe majority opinion. Later in life, Blackmun was often critical of the decision.
Guests and callers were less shy about sharing their glee over the end of Roe. They were sure to recite statistics and gruesome details about murdering babies. Those are the types of emotional appeals that conservatives typically slam liberals for using. It's not entertaining and ignores the historical difficulty the courts have had resolving when life begins.
Putting aside President Biden's statement, "no one can make the judgment to abort a child," determining when a fetus becomes a person remains controversial. Blackmun wrestled with the issue in his 1973 opinion. Ultimately, the court rejected the notion that the use of the word person in the constitution included fetuses. The Supreme Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy for setting regulations.
In its 1992 Casey opinion the court modified the trimester standard to fetal viability. Alito's initial draft doesn't address the subject at all. The court has yet to accept that abortion is "killing babies." Conservative talk show hosts need a more nuanced and less emotional appeal here.
Liberals, on the other hand, have discovered the "what's next?" strawman. Despite Alito clearly stating why abortion is a unique issue, advocates insist that overturning Roe will lead to outlawing contraception and reimplementing segregation, among other ridiculous claims. President Biden went so far as to wonder, "what happens if a state changes the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit under the way the decision is written?"
Nobody bought the "what's next?" argument during the gay marriage debate. Back then, conservatives posited that allowing members of the same sex could lead to polygamy and bestiality. None of the conservative nightmares happened because of gay marriage, just as none of the scenarios liberals are suggesting will happen in a post-Roe world.
My body, my choice, is a popular refrain used by both sides. Conservatives used words similar when it came to government mandates regarding Covid vaccines. Yet, the same people have no issue commanding a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Conversely, abortion rights advocates who say my body, my choice have no issue with the government ordering people to get vaccinated. While both sides were quick to point at the other's hypocrisy, neither dealt with its own conundrum.
When I'm listening to a talk show take on an issue widely covered, I'm listening to hear something that isn't in the talking points. Does the host exhibit superior logic, and can they link all the data? Indeed not every show fell into these traps. If yours did something different and I don't know about you, please drop me a line. I'm always looking for great talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment