Earlier today, I was listening to news on the radio, and one of the programs had two guests, both of whom were speaking about the nature of the public discussion regarding abortion in the wake of Dr. George Tiller's recent murder.
The pro-abortion rights guest was relatively eloquent, though given to alot of rhetoric. However, she made her points and made them well.
The anti-abortion rights guest was another matter, and I think that this reflects poorly on the news network. While the other guest had spoken of ethics in medicine as a balance between personal beliefs, best practice of medicine, and social responsibility, this guest immediately began rambling about supernatural origins of life and didn't seem capable of actually maintaining linear thought.
Now, here's the thing - in all honestly, I probably would have disagreed with the guy anyway. Like anyone who reads alot and listens to the news, I have heard a wide psectrum of views on abortion, and it's been a long time since I have heard anything actually new. However I have heard people who are opposed to legalized abortion speak intelligently and eloquently before. I have come away from hearing similar shows really having to think about where I stood on the subject (though, again, it's been a while since that last happened).
So, why did they get this guy? A part of me wants to say that they got him because they wanted an easy target, but this particular show tends to be very fair-minded, and they were very respectful to the guest even when he rambled aimlessly.
In truth, it was probably just luck of the draw, and this was a bad guest - it is bound to happen to any daily program. It was still frustrating to hear the guy ramble on, and it made the producers of the show look bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment