Praise where praise is deserved - Dan Abrams handled this segment perfectly, foregoing the he-said-she-said false equivalence, and even remembering to ask for the origin of the supposedly scientific study trotted out by the utterly dishonest proponent of the abstinence-only education:
Let's hope that his colleagues were paying attention and will try to emulate him in the future, whenever they have a liar on the show (both scientific and non-scientific topics, of course).
Thanks, Amanda.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In response to a report put out by Rep. Henry Waxman that detailed a wide range of innacuracies and falsehoods in many of the abstinence-only curricula being used in states around the country, and being heavily funded by the Bush administration, the so-cons are furiously trying to defend such…
For those of us who have been wondering whether Bush is really on the so-con bandwagon or was just pretending to be in order to court their votes in the last election, here is one bit of evidence for the first conclusion:
President Bush's re-election insures that more federal money will flow to…
Two former US Surgeons General have announced that the United States
has unacceptable levels of
title="sexually transmitted diseases">STDs
and that abstinence-only education has not helped.
Note that the Presidents "
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap14.html">Record…
As y'all may or may not be aware, the XVI International AIDS Conference begins this weekend in Toronto. For those of you who read Seed magazine, you've seen that the current issue focuses on "AIDS at 25," and they also have an online summary here. As a matter of fact, myself, a Seed journalist,…
Perfectly? He never once called her a liar to her face.
She's pushing the point that the 10-year study proves her right, while we see that on its face it proves her dead wrong. He tried to get her to say whether the study is false, but she outwitted him. He should have said either the study is lying or you are lying, so which is which?
Dan Abrams does a better job than most MSM reporters, but nevertheless, he resorts to snark, rather than information and reason, as a weapon. The "abstinence-only" proponent lies about several different aspects of the education program and its failures, and her face shows it, with the rapid blinking, the transient smirks (like Dubya's), and the shifting eyes. The abstinence-only education program is based on Bad Science with a capital BS, and a reporter who had read just one or two recent review articles from an ob-gyn or adolescent medicine program would have been able to shoot the liar down in flames.
By definition, abstinence-only education withholds information about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, human reproductive physiology, and sexual behavior. According to two recent review articles (one by Ott and Santelli in Curr. Opin. Obstret. Gynecol., and another by Kelly and Schwartz in Int. J. Health Serv.), abstinence-only education violates the human rights of teenagers, by denying them information about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Not to mention the fact that it utterly fails to address the needs and concerns of homosexual teens; rather, it denies their existence.
[rant] I'm disgusted at how the MSM dumbs everything down for the "masses" in the US, especially when the topics are science and technology. No wonder we're so far behind the rest of the developed world in science and math education...everything in our mainstream culture caters to the dumbest common denominator. [/rant]
"Dan Abrams does a better job than most MSM reporters, but nevertheless, he resorts to snark, rather than information and reason, as a weapon."
I agree that this is problematic. While it is admirable that Abrams got the right answer, he is behaving like a strident partisan, rather than a dispassionate journalist.
I don't think this topic requires a dispassionate journalist, nor that this should be a partisan issue (and if one party picks a lie as its platform, it's their problem, not ours or journalistic). As I said on Greg Laden's blog:
"I wouldn't call it "reporting" - it is a well-deserved public ridicule and exposure of dishonesty. After all, there is not much here to report: the jury's been in on this for quite a while and one of the "sides" is clearly wrong, hypocritical and dishonest. Sorta like creationists who also only deserve ridicule."