I am beyond disappointed that your writer, Kathy Young, immediately jumped on the right wing “Did it really happen” bandwagon. I’m very angry about this. In writing her article she called into question everyone involved in this tragedy- the victim and her family, the doctors, especially Dr. Bernard the Ob-Gyn who brok…
I am beyond disappointed that your writer, Kathy Young, immediately jumped on the right wing “Did it really happen” bandwagon. I’m very angry about this. In writing her article she called into question everyone involved in this tragedy- the victim and her family, the doctors, especially Dr. Bernard the Ob-Gyn who broke the story to the Indy Star. She questioned it all.
Why did she do it? Apparently because Dr. Bernard was the only source and Ms. Young found that very suspicious. Yes, I know she wasn’t alone in her suspicion. Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post led this crusade in the MSM. Ms. Young did not have to join him but she chose to do just that.
Her suspicion, followed by the writing of her column, shows an absolute misunderstanding of how a situation like the rape and pregnancy of a 10 year old could absolutely be true without finding immediate corroboration. One of your readers who has years of experience with this type of case repeatedly tried to point out to Ms Young the fallacy of her thinking but she would have none of it.
The types of post Roe abortion horror stories that will come to light are not going to fit into some nice, neat, predetermined package. They will be ugly and messy and yes sometimes without multiple sources. To immediately “question” if they are a hoax is beyond disgusting.
As a follow up, the Indiana Attorney General, Todd Rokita, has announced an investigation into Dr. Bernard under the guise of determining whether or not she followed the child abuse reporting standards. He’s going after her medical license. This is real and it’s happening in a ruby red state with an extreme right wing attorney general.
I actually was not as upset as many readers here about Cathy's column pointing out that there was no corroboration of the story. We DO need to be careful about disinformation wherever it comes from.
What does trouble me is that the activist Right and The Bulwark seemed to agree that if it couldn't be proved, it probably didn't happen. It was only proved because the rapist confessed and was arrested. This could easily not have happened, or not have happened for months or years, by which time the Right Wing assertion that "The Left lies about these abortion horror stories" would have become conventional wisdom. It would be far too late for proof to make any difference to anyone.
This is part of the double standard problem JVL often describes: Fox "News" and its allied outlets can spew any old crap, and people shrug their shoulders and say, "that's just what they do," while Democrats and their allies are held to traditional standards of journalistic ethics. I don't know what to do about it. Certainly not become crazed pathological liars too, but it's a real dilemma, and I'm afraid Cathy's article contributed to the problem.
My take too, and I was myself skeptical— it smacked of urban legend, and fit too perfectly the shape of a convenient simple minded narrative of right wing villainy—however we live in a time when each day reveals as true claims which only the day before any reasonable person would have had to dismiss as mendacious slander and impossible nonsense.
It’s as if we are watching a James Bond movie in which a cartoonish villain builds a huge island hideaway full of spaceships and private armies of gloating henchmen, and we leave the theater saying, well, Im afraid even though I wanted to I just couldnt get my disbelief suspended enough, that was so ridiculous and just too absurd even for a spy movie —but when the news comes on we find out it was all true.
It would be lovely to live in a world where the rape of a ten-year-old child was unimaginable, but as the news proves daily, that world exists only in fairy tales. It's not an urban legend: it is that poor child's nightmare existence.
What particularly galled me was everyone's willingness to forget about issues of patient privacy and maintaining the anonymity of a minor. All of which are going to be huge issues in the near future. (Although since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution, just as Justice Kavanaugh's right to privacy at dinner wasn't, it may will go by the wayside. I'd say I was being sarcastic, but not really.)
This same thing happened yesterday in the Dispatch, with the morning report jumping on the bandwagon to criticize this story as sensational and unfounded , and with a reader with years of experience as an attorney in this type of case explaining(in the Comments section) the reasons for lack of instant corroboration. Today, the Dispatch morning report also published a mea culpa about how they reported this yesterday.
Two things: First, I think it might still be hard for former Republican-leaning journalists who have years of experience jumping on what they consider to be over-reaching or even untrue stories by Democratic-leaning journalists. They jumped on the bandwagon with this one, expressing veiled contempt for what they considered the Lefties jumping on the bandwagon.
Second, I hope both the Dispatch and the Bulwark have learned a lesson. Good on them that they admitted their mistake, not so good that they didn't exercise some caution in the first place.
Yes, I saw that. I don't subscribe, so couldn't read the comments, but IMHO, Sarah and a few of the other Dispatch folks have an arrogant self-confidence that I find very annoying.
I agree. There is definitely a high and mighty vibe there. I read the Goldberg piece over there about Kamala Harris. The piece was fine, but the comments immediately went to sewer level. Racism, misogyny, her laugh, her shoes, her husband, questioning if she really does have older stepchildren that call her Momola.
It was awful, but a good reminder of the fact that there are conservatives who are anti-trump, still conservative, still think they are legions above liberals but have not even attempted to purge the worst parts of their poisonous ideology. And they have zero self awareness about those problems which are baked in. The only reason I stay there is because it reinforces to me, a former Republican, that the rot in the party, even if some are reasonable, is deep enough that I will never return.
My view with the difference between Bulwark and Dispatch at this point is Bulwark writers have all seen the reality of the GOP and are going to do absolutely everything in their power to fight it while Dispatch writers are still clinging to to their old beliefs but refusing to assist Trumpers, missing that that take ultimately helps the Trumpers. David French in particular comes to mind. Too naive about the reality IMO
One of the problems is that seemingly no one waits or works for confirmation any more. Gotta get the piece out NOW, because of how fast the news/media cycle moves. have to be on topic. Have to be relevant.
When people DO wait, they get abused for waiting--because they are "ignoring it" or the don't think whatever it is is "important."
Another gift of the digital, online, 24/7/365 news cycle and social media,
I think people here are pissed at Cathy, not because of the rationale behind her piece, which is that there are journalistic standards and journalistic publications should adhere to them, but because of the nature of the piece she was criticizing. I'm seeing two lines of criticism of her, and neither are fair:
1) The story was "truthy," ie, it seemed like it could be true, and certainly there is a story out there like it that is true, so Cathy was out of line to criticize the process that led to its publication.
2) Cathy was in the wrong because she said the story was false. This is not fair because that's not what Cathy was saying. She was saying given her analysis of the information she had about the story, she doubted it was true. But she acknowledged it could still be true.
Indeed, the story does appear to be an illustration of attempting to be first, and eschewing journalistic standards to be first even if it may risk not being right. If the Columbus Dispatch had waited until there was an arrest, or had otherwise adhered to regular standards, no one would have had this conversation.
And, if Cathy had written a piece in October of 2020 criticizing shoddy journalism that went into a piece about Hunter Biden's laptop, no one here would have attacked her for it in the comments, even if the story in the piece might have turned out to be true.
My issue with her story is that she ignored all the reasons that the article could not be better sourced, and the editors standing behind the sourcing. Finally she stated that it was extremely unlikely that a 10 year old was seeking and abortion in the first place and suggested that in any case, it was unbelievable she would need to cross state lines because of the exceptions for serious heath situations for the mom (seemingly she was unbothered by the idea there were no explicit exemptions for incest).
Yes, and it's interesting she didn't write her newsletter last Sunday after turning out to have been spectacularly wrong about the incident and astonishingly adversarial to commenters. If she wasn't able to do so because of a personal matter, I understand and wish her well, but if she was hiding behind work, vacation, or some other flimsy excuse, that's lame.
I disagree, or at least suggest there is a #3 that many people here agree with. That #3 is not the subject or her take on it but how she responded in the comments when people with far more expertise provided rebuttals to her points. There was no "Interesting, thanks for sharing that; that's definitely something to think about." Instead, she was dismissive and arrogant and just doubled down.
I'd say more that she was in the wrong due to her framing (and then the follow up in the comments).
Here's what I wrote below:
----
Nothing wrong with a statement that says, "hey, this story has just a single source. I have no specific reason to disbelieve it, but I'm also not going to just assume it is 100% true either."
Making a full length article to highlight all the reasons for active doubt rather than patient skepticism is quite a bit different than that, even if a technical line wasn't crossed.
----
And if the main point is about journalistic integrity then make that the main point. Pretty easy to do, if that's what a writer wants to do. "Whether this story is true or not is beside the point I'd like to make: "
Also, I don't believe it was the Columbus Dispatch that didn't wait. They're the ones that reported on the arrest and the apparent dishonesty of the Ohio AG.
I thought you had decided to take a principled stand against reading anything Cathy wrote on Sundays.
I don't think she gave her opinion without facts. She laid out a litany of facts as to why the story ought to be approached with skepticism, due to the shortcomings of the journalistic process that led to its publication.
If she came to an opinion on the story without enough information, then you also came to an opinion without enough information, and the Indy Star wrote the story without enough information, because we were all working with the same information. If people can't write pieces unless they have perfect information on events that haven't happened yet, like the arrest of this fiend, then we're not going to have a whole lot to read. We form opinions based on the facts at hand, and when the facts change, or new facts emerge, our opinions should change, too.
So you concluded that no one should come to a conclusion, but lots of people did come to conclusions, and Cathy was the one you wanted to argue with. I understand there were circumstances that may have made getting better sourcing problematic. But if you can’t get better sourcing for your story, whatever the reason, maybe your story is not fit for publication. Journalism still has standards and practices.
I guess I'm inclined to defend her because I found her piece persuasive at the time, and having given it a second look just now, I actually find it more persuasive. It's pretty extraordinary to move forward on a piece apparently based on hearsay from one source, and when Cathy said she was "leaning strongly toward 'probably didn't happen'", that's about where I fell, too. The commenters did make some good points about why one might expect sourcing to be hard to come by, though. But, I think the outcome is likely to be that fewer stories are reported, rather than lots of stories are reported based on poor journalistic practices because the environment will not allow proper journalism to take place. Neither outcome is particularly welcome, and we have the GOP to thank for all of it. You have a good evening, too.
I used to view the pre-Roe stories as a legacy to view objectively, stories of when we were a younger, dumber people who took our time to learn. Now...now, past is prologue, and the new epilogue will only come when we restore what this reactionary SCOTUS is taking from We the People
Even if it didn't happen, the fact that it easily could is what should've been scary to the Cathy Young's of the world. This is the kind of complacency that gives the MAGA insurgency room to breath. Until Cathy and others understand that the *only* platform the GOP has right now is *keeping dems out of power and punishing them when in power*, they will keep giving the MAGA insurgency the room it needs to breath via the selling of doubt. This is a lot like the people who defended the tobacco companies because they were so complacent about greed. "The free market could do no wrong" these people thought--until proven horribly wrong. This is the same kind of complacency and wishful thinking about the MAGA insurgency. MAGAs want to end democracy and either displace or kill liberals so that they can have their own little white conservative jesus country that they've wanted since Reagan. They're just not hiding it anymore.
I think this is the problem. People presume that these awful things cannot happen because they lack sufficient imagination. They do. Every day they do.
Our laws should work to support the victims of those things maximally.
Back when I was a progressive, the one thing I respected about conservatives was that they generally understood just how fucked up man is. The irony is that they wanted the least amount of government to control the men they understood to be fallen. It's like making sure the leopards eating people's faces had the longest leash humanly possible while understanding that leopards eat people's faces. Our laws should keep the leopards on a short leash--especially the most powerful ones. Instead we worship the leopards and try hard as shit to be just like them because we think we have a chance at becoming leopards some day too. We never will. Not at this rate. Our kids will just lose their faces too.
Took the words right outta my mouth. Ms Young might have waited a bit before spouting her opinions in order to get more info, but didn't, to her detriment. Also, in her piece posted yesterday and today she mentions the opinions of previous boyfriends on the issue of abortion. Would anybody care to hear my old bf's thoughts on abortion? I didn't think so. Hey, God, Gawd, or physics and biology evolving through billions of years gave women the power of birth, it/they...gave women the power of birth. Get over it.
I share your negative feelings upon reading Kathy's article on the 10-yr old, and also her longer article exploring background & opinions of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If this particular story was fake, it hardly matters, because it represents what we know is happening out there - people desperate to end a pregnancy will not be able to; or will only end it after a ridiculously arduous journey.
HOWEVER, her point is valid. Allowing ourselves to become inflamed at a picture or a quote that flies through social media, is exactly what has already stirred people up. None of us likes to be manipulated in our personal lives, but we forget our vigilance when it comes to issues that resonate with our core beliefs & values.
I am much more disappointed in her longer discussion regarding the ways that Pro-choice views interact & conflict with Pro-life views. It reminds me that we get really upset about this topic, and spend a lot of time talking about when life begins and what reasons are acceptable to end a pregnancy. I am about to say something a little crazy....
1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it. 2) A woman cannot be equal to a man if she does not have the same opportunity to direct her life; i.e. uninterrupted by pregnancy, childbirth, & recovery.
SO if a woman is to be equal, she must have the option to end pregnancy for any or no reason at all. And how can pregnancy be less private than sex, marriage, & religion?
A population will never be at peace if abortion is illegal, or illegal with 1 or 2 exceptions. Instead, both sides should work toward an abortion option that makes sense & counseling designed to persuade, not browbeat, to choose life.
Carolyn, what you are saying is not crazy, but in response to your #1, isn't this the question? In other words, isn't the fundamental disagreement about whether or not the "unborn person", as you express it, is or is not a person with the same rights as any other person? In this case, the person within whose body they are temporarily developing?
I happen to believe the unborn person is a person, just one we can't see yet because they are inside their mother's body. If that is the case, then logically, neither person's rights are greater than the other's.
But I respect and do not judge a person if they believe what is inside the mother's body is not a separate person, but rather a "fetus" or "embryo" without the rights of a person already born.
This is the tragic problem. As several people have said, no one is "pro-abortion". I can't imagine any woman not struggling emotionally and feeling grief before choosing to have an abortion, even if she is grieving something that she believes is not yet a person but now will never have the change to become one.
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
It does indeed matter if a story was true or false. People who complain about "disinformation" or its right wing equivalent, "fake news," ought to recognize that a culture that loses its ability or willingness to distinguish confirmation bias from reality is inviting political dysfunction.
I remember attending a literary reading in which the speaker claimed that the story she'd concocted about an atrocity was "true" regardless whether it actually happened. That may be sufficient for poets or Hollywood, but it is highly inadequate for informed public policy discourse.
Needless to say, journalistic credibility depends upon the faithful reporting of facts. The nihilistic alternative ("nothing matters") comes right out of the autocrat's playbook.
At the same time, a minor, who cannot make any choices about their life without their parents' consent, should not be forced to carry a child to term who was the result of an abusive rape.
I hear Bukwark pundits repeatedly define their perspectives as pro life, but they clearly aren’t categorically against abortion in all cases. They’re pro choice along a spectrum of circumstances. I’ve worked in a clinic that provided abortions. Nobody is pro abortion.
A few weeks ago I heard a caller on a radio program (POTUS channel, satellite radio) identify himself as pro-life, but then went on to say he supported every woman's right to make up her own mind about it. This confused me. I said to myself, "this guy is actually pro-choice but he doesn't know it." I now think perhaps a lot of people fall into this category - maybe because the pro-life side has contorted the debate for so long, and the term "pro-life" sounds like a better thing to be?
YES! I had this EXACT discussion with my niece, who grew up in an Evangelical church. She called herself pro-life, but didn't think it was up to her or anyone else to make that decision for someone else. I wrote back to her (this discussion was via text) that she basically just described the quintessential pro-choice position. She just couldn't bring herself to ID as pro-choice, because the Rs have so successfully propagandized that term to be pro-abortion. There is NOTHING that is "prolife" about making abortion illegal; it only leads to death and suffering for living, breathing women.
Whoa, some people around here bust a gasket when you try to change wording to be more clear or inclusive.
That said, pro-birth seems to be catching on since people are starting to wake up to the fact that pro-life people aren't actually pro-life at all but are just pro-birth.
On the other hand, it might have been more journalistically responsible for the Indianapolis star to have broken the story today instead of last week. It would have prevented all the gloating over on the right about Biden deliberately lying about a 10-yea-old to stoke more par5tisan outrage.
Yes I hear you. Charlie and & Mona seem to put effort into being moderate, whereas Cathy is the person who ends up Republican cuz they just can't see why people 'make a fuss.'
Thank you, Sue. I was equally appalled when Joe Walsh tweeted, "Shouldn't the truth matter?" Which implies it was a fake story. The Right lives a fairy tale world where all children are loved, wanted and cherished. They dance in a field of flowers followed by singing birds. The reality is children are abused and raped. And in this case a child was impregnated. But these fascists don't care about the truth or this child. They are unhinged. Their need for power and control outweighs everything else.
And look how many of them immediately dropped the "it's a lie" line without comment, so they could take up the "he's an illegal immigrant!!!!!" attack line. It's just about finding the next cudgel.
In her short time here, Cathy Young has repeatedly come across as tone-deaf and arrogant. Bulwark readers appreciate different takes, but they don't appreciate ideologues. I think bringing her on was a mistake, as she is alienating readers.
Agree. As a former former Faux news and other right wing media consumer, all my alarms go full blast with most of what Ms.Young writes. Ideologue is the correct word, I think. She makes some valid points at times, but they are drowned out by her sweeping presumptions and resulting pronouncements. In my case, I am 100 times bitten and 1000 times shy, but I can sniff out bad faith conclusions when I hear them. If I didn't know better, I sometimes think she is just parroting the right wing "just asking questions" backhand narratives.
I do not believe she adds anything of substance to The Bulwark, regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum.
TCinLA, I really enjoy your comments; you have a lot of info about topics of interest and express yourself very well--I learn a lot from reading your comments.
I am requesting that you refrain from name-calling people you disagree with, in this case, Cathy Young. It is unpleasant to me, and I have found that when people engage in this, it sometimes causes those who listen to them or in this case, read them, to form a judgement about them that makes it less likely that people will appreciate their otherwise valuable comments.
You could do what I do, get my enraged ya-yas out by yelling imprecations at the page if I'm reading or screen if I'm watching. For example, I just watched "Rebel Without a Cause" for my family Zoom movie discussion, and had a great time yelling insults at the screen when the characters said or did something outrageous.
Yeah, calling names is never ok, and here it is actually one of the rules...no name calling o individuals, stay civil etc
If this keeps up I personally will stop reading the comment section, it seems to be have been taken over by a lot of close minded mean people, my least favorite
And if you guys think they will get rid of Cathy because you guys don't like her, I doubt, they actually like diversity of opinion and not being a bubble
You are decrying name-calling while calling a large group of Bulwark members "close minded mean people" even though they have articulated well-reasoned points that turned out to be right.
How are we supposed to take you seriously?
Also, your writing is, to steal a word, deplorable. Please learn what run-on sentences are and how to use commas properly. Your terrible writing skills undermine my willingness to take you seriously as a thoughtful, intelligent person.
Ever heard of stream of consciousness writing, that is how I write, I write as I think...you don't have to like it, but, It is my style, you an choose to ignore it if you like...I don't write for anyone's approval by style or substance
I didn't call everyone close minded and mean, just the ones who were...and I thought I said sounded to me, for that matter...if I didn't, it is what I meant...but some posters did nothing but trash Cathy and they often trash other posters who don't agree with them.
You don't have to take me seriously, your choice...I am so far from a troll it is hysterical...I don't like the name calling and meanness, so yes, in this case I called it out...I actually tried to make it less mean than what was being posted...The Bulwark and myself believe in civility , but, I am used to calling it out when people aren't...especially in self moderated forums.
I didn't personally address you at all, yet, you felt the need to trash me personally yourself. Even my writing style.
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. I was attacking the behavior in general, not the person. It is against the rules and also just not a way to interact with people .So, yes, I don't like it, and I am going to say so when I see it. I always do. I think it just perpetuates the divisiveness and tribalism that we really need to tone down if we want to survive as a country. Or get anything done or that matter.
I am generally very polite and word things in non confrontational ways, ( I often get accused of being too nice) but, this is one area where I think it needs called out for the good of The Bulwark and the country. Maybe I didn't phrase it the way I wanted to, but, the opinion stands. We here are trying to have a civil forum, not the angry, nasty twitter version. And that was my only point.
Anyone can choose to not listen, but, I will keep saying so when I see it.
Agreed. It also just blows my mind that journalists somehow think that these tragedies don't actually occur. I wasn't surprised at all that this could have happened whether it did or not. It would have been nice if the response from journalists was "we can't confirm this happened but let's discuss the implications if indeed it did."
I viewed Cathy Young’s column as a relapse and something of a fumble from our Bulwark friends. It would have been fair to privately say “hmmmm”’and take a wait and see approach, but joining in the “just asking questions” chorus was a bad call -- and I thought that before the story was confirmed.
That was not because of whose side it helped or hurt, but because it was the sort of story where the details were going to be slow in coming, and rightly so. Journalists can be myopic (and ruthless, and more than a little cruel and heartless) in putting the story first, but responsible doctors and public officials (yes, some still exist) have other priorities. And that goes ten times for anyone who’s the subject of a story -- journalists do not have your interest in mind. The story unfolded in its due time, even if not to the satisfaction of some reporters and opinion columnists.
The more I read about Mr Rokita the more it becomes clear that compared to him, the despicable graveside hate performances of the Westboro Baptist church seem like charitable expressions of comfort and support to grieving relatives.
Of course the pro life Todd Rokita needs to protect the sanctity of human life. That's why he told people not to wear masks. That's why he is using the courts to harass Black Lives Matter. That's why he needs to take away the medical licenses of doctors who provide medical care to forcibly impregnated children. He is on a God-ordained mission to get into the US Senate so he can be even more effective and protecting human life.
My husband and I keep wondering why they brought her onboard. Will was a great addition, but she's not a very good writer, and pretty inarticulate in person.
Yes, it did happen.
I am beyond disappointed that your writer, Kathy Young, immediately jumped on the right wing “Did it really happen” bandwagon. I’m very angry about this. In writing her article she called into question everyone involved in this tragedy- the victim and her family, the doctors, especially Dr. Bernard the Ob-Gyn who broke the story to the Indy Star. She questioned it all.
Why did she do it? Apparently because Dr. Bernard was the only source and Ms. Young found that very suspicious. Yes, I know she wasn’t alone in her suspicion. Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post led this crusade in the MSM. Ms. Young did not have to join him but she chose to do just that.
Her suspicion, followed by the writing of her column, shows an absolute misunderstanding of how a situation like the rape and pregnancy of a 10 year old could absolutely be true without finding immediate corroboration. One of your readers who has years of experience with this type of case repeatedly tried to point out to Ms Young the fallacy of her thinking but she would have none of it.
The types of post Roe abortion horror stories that will come to light are not going to fit into some nice, neat, predetermined package. They will be ugly and messy and yes sometimes without multiple sources. To immediately “question” if they are a hoax is beyond disgusting.
As a follow up, the Indiana Attorney General, Todd Rokita, has announced an investigation into Dr. Bernard under the guise of determining whether or not she followed the child abuse reporting standards. He’s going after her medical license. This is real and it’s happening in a ruby red state with an extreme right wing attorney general.
I actually was not as upset as many readers here about Cathy's column pointing out that there was no corroboration of the story. We DO need to be careful about disinformation wherever it comes from.
What does trouble me is that the activist Right and The Bulwark seemed to agree that if it couldn't be proved, it probably didn't happen. It was only proved because the rapist confessed and was arrested. This could easily not have happened, or not have happened for months or years, by which time the Right Wing assertion that "The Left lies about these abortion horror stories" would have become conventional wisdom. It would be far too late for proof to make any difference to anyone.
This is part of the double standard problem JVL often describes: Fox "News" and its allied outlets can spew any old crap, and people shrug their shoulders and say, "that's just what they do," while Democrats and their allies are held to traditional standards of journalistic ethics. I don't know what to do about it. Certainly not become crazed pathological liars too, but it's a real dilemma, and I'm afraid Cathy's article contributed to the problem.
My take too, and I was myself skeptical— it smacked of urban legend, and fit too perfectly the shape of a convenient simple minded narrative of right wing villainy—however we live in a time when each day reveals as true claims which only the day before any reasonable person would have had to dismiss as mendacious slander and impossible nonsense.
It’s as if we are watching a James Bond movie in which a cartoonish villain builds a huge island hideaway full of spaceships and private armies of gloating henchmen, and we leave the theater saying, well, Im afraid even though I wanted to I just couldnt get my disbelief suspended enough, that was so ridiculous and just too absurd even for a spy movie —but when the news comes on we find out it was all true.
It would be lovely to live in a world where the rape of a ten-year-old child was unimaginable, but as the news proves daily, that world exists only in fairy tales. It's not an urban legend: it is that poor child's nightmare existence.
Like!
What particularly galled me was everyone's willingness to forget about issues of patient privacy and maintaining the anonymity of a minor. All of which are going to be huge issues in the near future. (Although since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution, just as Justice Kavanaugh's right to privacy at dinner wasn't, it may will go by the wayside. I'd say I was being sarcastic, but not really.)
This same thing happened yesterday in the Dispatch, with the morning report jumping on the bandwagon to criticize this story as sensational and unfounded , and with a reader with years of experience as an attorney in this type of case explaining(in the Comments section) the reasons for lack of instant corroboration. Today, the Dispatch morning report also published a mea culpa about how they reported this yesterday.
Two things: First, I think it might still be hard for former Republican-leaning journalists who have years of experience jumping on what they consider to be over-reaching or even untrue stories by Democratic-leaning journalists. They jumped on the bandwagon with this one, expressing veiled contempt for what they considered the Lefties jumping on the bandwagon.
Second, I hope both the Dispatch and the Bulwark have learned a lesson. Good on them that they admitted their mistake, not so good that they didn't exercise some caution in the first place.
Yes, I saw that. I don't subscribe, so couldn't read the comments, but IMHO, Sarah and a few of the other Dispatch folks have an arrogant self-confidence that I find very annoying.
I agree. There is definitely a high and mighty vibe there. I read the Goldberg piece over there about Kamala Harris. The piece was fine, but the comments immediately went to sewer level. Racism, misogyny, her laugh, her shoes, her husband, questioning if she really does have older stepchildren that call her Momola.
It was awful, but a good reminder of the fact that there are conservatives who are anti-trump, still conservative, still think they are legions above liberals but have not even attempted to purge the worst parts of their poisonous ideology. And they have zero self awareness about those problems which are baked in. The only reason I stay there is because it reinforces to me, a former Republican, that the rot in the party, even if some are reasonable, is deep enough that I will never return.
My view with the difference between Bulwark and Dispatch at this point is Bulwark writers have all seen the reality of the GOP and are going to do absolutely everything in their power to fight it while Dispatch writers are still clinging to to their old beliefs but refusing to assist Trumpers, missing that that take ultimately helps the Trumpers. David French in particular comes to mind. Too naive about the reality IMO
One of the problems is that seemingly no one waits or works for confirmation any more. Gotta get the piece out NOW, because of how fast the news/media cycle moves. have to be on topic. Have to be relevant.
When people DO wait, they get abused for waiting--because they are "ignoring it" or the don't think whatever it is is "important."
Another gift of the digital, online, 24/7/365 news cycle and social media,
I think people here are pissed at Cathy, not because of the rationale behind her piece, which is that there are journalistic standards and journalistic publications should adhere to them, but because of the nature of the piece she was criticizing. I'm seeing two lines of criticism of her, and neither are fair:
1) The story was "truthy," ie, it seemed like it could be true, and certainly there is a story out there like it that is true, so Cathy was out of line to criticize the process that led to its publication.
2) Cathy was in the wrong because she said the story was false. This is not fair because that's not what Cathy was saying. She was saying given her analysis of the information she had about the story, she doubted it was true. But she acknowledged it could still be true.
Indeed, the story does appear to be an illustration of attempting to be first, and eschewing journalistic standards to be first even if it may risk not being right. If the Columbus Dispatch had waited until there was an arrest, or had otherwise adhered to regular standards, no one would have had this conversation.
And, if Cathy had written a piece in October of 2020 criticizing shoddy journalism that went into a piece about Hunter Biden's laptop, no one here would have attacked her for it in the comments, even if the story in the piece might have turned out to be true.
My issue with her story is that she ignored all the reasons that the article could not be better sourced, and the editors standing behind the sourcing. Finally she stated that it was extremely unlikely that a 10 year old was seeking and abortion in the first place and suggested that in any case, it was unbelievable she would need to cross state lines because of the exceptions for serious heath situations for the mom (seemingly she was unbothered by the idea there were no explicit exemptions for incest).
Yes, and it's interesting she didn't write her newsletter last Sunday after turning out to have been spectacularly wrong about the incident and astonishingly adversarial to commenters. If she wasn't able to do so because of a personal matter, I understand and wish her well, but if she was hiding behind work, vacation, or some other flimsy excuse, that's lame.
I disagree, or at least suggest there is a #3 that many people here agree with. That #3 is not the subject or her take on it but how she responded in the comments when people with far more expertise provided rebuttals to her points. There was no "Interesting, thanks for sharing that; that's definitely something to think about." Instead, she was dismissive and arrogant and just doubled down.
I'd say more that she was in the wrong due to her framing (and then the follow up in the comments).
Here's what I wrote below:
----
Nothing wrong with a statement that says, "hey, this story has just a single source. I have no specific reason to disbelieve it, but I'm also not going to just assume it is 100% true either."
Making a full length article to highlight all the reasons for active doubt rather than patient skepticism is quite a bit different than that, even if a technical line wasn't crossed.
----
And if the main point is about journalistic integrity then make that the main point. Pretty easy to do, if that's what a writer wants to do. "Whether this story is true or not is beside the point I'd like to make: "
Also, I don't believe it was the Columbus Dispatch that didn't wait. They're the ones that reported on the arrest and the apparent dishonesty of the Ohio AG.
I thought you had decided to take a principled stand against reading anything Cathy wrote on Sundays.
I don't think she gave her opinion without facts. She laid out a litany of facts as to why the story ought to be approached with skepticism, due to the shortcomings of the journalistic process that led to its publication.
If she came to an opinion on the story without enough information, then you also came to an opinion without enough information, and the Indy Star wrote the story without enough information, because we were all working with the same information. If people can't write pieces unless they have perfect information on events that haven't happened yet, like the arrest of this fiend, then we're not going to have a whole lot to read. We form opinions based on the facts at hand, and when the facts change, or new facts emerge, our opinions should change, too.
So you concluded that no one should come to a conclusion, but lots of people did come to conclusions, and Cathy was the one you wanted to argue with. I understand there were circumstances that may have made getting better sourcing problematic. But if you can’t get better sourcing for your story, whatever the reason, maybe your story is not fit for publication. Journalism still has standards and practices.
I guess I'm inclined to defend her because I found her piece persuasive at the time, and having given it a second look just now, I actually find it more persuasive. It's pretty extraordinary to move forward on a piece apparently based on hearsay from one source, and when Cathy said she was "leaning strongly toward 'probably didn't happen'", that's about where I fell, too. The commenters did make some good points about why one might expect sourcing to be hard to come by, though. But, I think the outcome is likely to be that fewer stories are reported, rather than lots of stories are reported based on poor journalistic practices because the environment will not allow proper journalism to take place. Neither outcome is particularly welcome, and we have the GOP to thank for all of it. You have a good evening, too.
I used to view the pre-Roe stories as a legacy to view objectively, stories of when we were a younger, dumber people who took our time to learn. Now...now, past is prologue, and the new epilogue will only come when we restore what this reactionary SCOTUS is taking from We the People
Even if it didn't happen, the fact that it easily could is what should've been scary to the Cathy Young's of the world. This is the kind of complacency that gives the MAGA insurgency room to breath. Until Cathy and others understand that the *only* platform the GOP has right now is *keeping dems out of power and punishing them when in power*, they will keep giving the MAGA insurgency the room it needs to breath via the selling of doubt. This is a lot like the people who defended the tobacco companies because they were so complacent about greed. "The free market could do no wrong" these people thought--until proven horribly wrong. This is the same kind of complacency and wishful thinking about the MAGA insurgency. MAGAs want to end democracy and either displace or kill liberals so that they can have their own little white conservative jesus country that they've wanted since Reagan. They're just not hiding it anymore.
I think this is the problem. People presume that these awful things cannot happen because they lack sufficient imagination. They do. Every day they do.
Our laws should work to support the victims of those things maximally.
Back when I was a progressive, the one thing I respected about conservatives was that they generally understood just how fucked up man is. The irony is that they wanted the least amount of government to control the men they understood to be fallen. It's like making sure the leopards eating people's faces had the longest leash humanly possible while understanding that leopards eat people's faces. Our laws should keep the leopards on a short leash--especially the most powerful ones. Instead we worship the leopards and try hard as shit to be just like them because we think we have a chance at becoming leopards some day too. We never will. Not at this rate. Our kids will just lose their faces too.
Thank you. I too was very upset at Cathy's article.
Took the words right outta my mouth. Ms Young might have waited a bit before spouting her opinions in order to get more info, but didn't, to her detriment. Also, in her piece posted yesterday and today she mentions the opinions of previous boyfriends on the issue of abortion. Would anybody care to hear my old bf's thoughts on abortion? I didn't think so. Hey, God, Gawd, or physics and biology evolving through billions of years gave women the power of birth, it/they...gave women the power of birth. Get over it.
I share your negative feelings upon reading Kathy's article on the 10-yr old, and also her longer article exploring background & opinions of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. If this particular story was fake, it hardly matters, because it represents what we know is happening out there - people desperate to end a pregnancy will not be able to; or will only end it after a ridiculously arduous journey.
HOWEVER, her point is valid. Allowing ourselves to become inflamed at a picture or a quote that flies through social media, is exactly what has already stirred people up. None of us likes to be manipulated in our personal lives, but we forget our vigilance when it comes to issues that resonate with our core beliefs & values.
I am much more disappointed in her longer discussion regarding the ways that Pro-choice views interact & conflict with Pro-life views. It reminds me that we get really upset about this topic, and spend a lot of time talking about when life begins and what reasons are acceptable to end a pregnancy. I am about to say something a little crazy....
1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it. 2) A woman cannot be equal to a man if she does not have the same opportunity to direct her life; i.e. uninterrupted by pregnancy, childbirth, & recovery.
SO if a woman is to be equal, she must have the option to end pregnancy for any or no reason at all. And how can pregnancy be less private than sex, marriage, & religion?
A population will never be at peace if abortion is illegal, or illegal with 1 or 2 exceptions. Instead, both sides should work toward an abortion option that makes sense & counseling designed to persuade, not browbeat, to choose life.
Carolyn, what you are saying is not crazy, but in response to your #1, isn't this the question? In other words, isn't the fundamental disagreement about whether or not the "unborn person", as you express it, is or is not a person with the same rights as any other person? In this case, the person within whose body they are temporarily developing?
I happen to believe the unborn person is a person, just one we can't see yet because they are inside their mother's body. If that is the case, then logically, neither person's rights are greater than the other's.
But I respect and do not judge a person if they believe what is inside the mother's body is not a separate person, but rather a "fetus" or "embryo" without the rights of a person already born.
This is the tragic problem. As several people have said, no one is "pro-abortion". I can't imagine any woman not struggling emotionally and feeling grief before choosing to have an abortion, even if she is grieving something that she believes is not yet a person but now will never have the change to become one.
A.) I hear you, but I disagree that the 2 person's rights are equal. For one, it is the federal gov that is charged with protecting rights, and the gov does not require information about the person inside you until it is out. The baby in fact does not exist prior to a date of birth. Second reason is that the baby is literally dependent on the mother's body for all major organ function, which makes it impossible for them to be equal. Even if we can ignore/change #1, we cannot assume equal rights of the unborn, until some agreed-upon reference coordinated with viability. Giving the baby rights before viability necessarily means that protecting those rights requires quashing the woman's.
B.) One of the reasons that pro-lifers feel strongly is because if abortion is legal, some will wrecklessly use it as birth control, or choose it for convenience, or otherwise choose it without truly considering what they are doing morally. And this does occur. And then there's the next group of women that like having abortion as a back-up to their birth control. It is true that increased acceptance of abortion means more abortion.
C.) As a society, we need to handle this issue in a way where rights don't conflict. Something like national right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with required minimum interventions before it can be done (and streamline those interventions). And have the most robust (but discreet) interaction with the mother as possible. Finding out what she would need 1) to not abort & give thru adoption or 2) keep the child herself. And then connect her to those things. And allow abortions later than 12 weeks for the exceptional cases, requiring affadavits from doctors and/or law enforcement. The goal of both sides should be to minimize abortion, not criminalize it. And screw Clarence Thomas for saying abortion right is not ingrained in our history - women from the beginning of time have experienced desperate situations.
Maybe you haven’t had terrible complications in pregnancy. I had an abortion in the second trimester because my pregnancy was not viable, baby had defects, was not growing and that meant it wouldn’t survive to delivery. The abortion wasn’t the tragedy. The tragedy is how difficult it is to have a successful pregnancy with our very high maternal mortality among western nations and how expensive it is. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting we compound that trauma with government officials adjudicating a medical procedure that should be safe and legal. Who are you to think you have the right to make me or anyone else property of the state?
I apologize for coming across that way. With the Dobbs decision, Ohio has started with the 6 week ban on abortion which is a ridiculous amount of time for a woman to both know she is pregnant and make a decision about abortion and then schedule it. I was brainstorming compromise, wondering what the left would have to give up in order to possibly get a national right to abortion up to x weeks. I don't truly want women to have to jump through hoops, explain themselves, etc. Decisions like you made are hard enough without my opinion or red tape, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring response. So many are so callous in this debate. It goes to show that no one knows enough about each person’s experience nor do we have an agreement on what is right or wrong in each circumstance. All the more reason to leave it to a woman and her doctor.
It’s so terrible. I haven’t wanted to talk about it as it happened a few years ago and I found a way to tuck it away. But everything happening now and how we talk about it is so callous and painful. I hope at the end of the day we can get to a place in this country where we recognize every person has dignity, basic human rights and self-determination.
Thanks for this extremely thoughtful reply, Carolyn. Your point A is similar to what my Law Professor brother says when I discuss this with him. And your points in A make a lot of sense.
Your point C resonates with me too.
My issue is that I just can't get over my belief in the personhood of that unborn baby, even though it is true that baby is dependent on his/her mother's body until the point of viability. I guess one of my problems is that the point of viability is a moving target as medical interventions improve. Another problem is that I just can't help feeling all kinds of protectiveness for that little baby sucking his thumb in the sonogram.
But again, I will say that I totally understand that some people truly don't see it the way I do, and have very good arguments for their viewpoint.
Thank you as well for taking the time to converse.
I wonder, if we updated viabilty frequently from the medical field, and we picked a number, say 80% of babies will survive if born at x weeks. Could a woman have an option of giving up the baby for adoption at birth induced at viability? Most women would be able to hide the pregnancy from the public.
That would be a possibility, Carolyn. What comes to mind for me:
I think it's too bad that a woman giving up her baby for adoption is sometimes seen by society as a shameful thing(not saying you think that). I am the mother of two wonderful adult children, in their forties, whom we adopted as infants. My son, his family, and I have been in contact with his birth mother for several years (the beauty of DNA testing). She, my son, and I are all thrilled. There was no way she could have kept him, and she is so grateful that he had a loving upbringing.
To my knowledge, adoption most often turns out as fine as families consisting of bio members.
So to continue on with that theme, if the woman decides she would like her baby to live and be adopted, maybe she could carry the baby to term rather than feel she needed to hide her pregnancy?
What you suggest, though, would be a compromise for a woman who wants to give her baby a chance at life but cannot or chooses not , for whatever reason, to carry to term.
I confess that I have a bias in favor of babies being born instead of aborted because I have seen that families can be made in different ways and, of course, I look at my kids and grandkids and realize their birth moms could have chosen not to have them be in the world.
With all that, I continue to be sympathetic and understanding of women whose beliefs about their pregnancies are different from mine and whose situations are their own.
You're ok. I was just thinking of ways that might guarantee access to abortion but still try to prevent some of them.
"1) The rights of an unborn person cannot be GREATER than the rights of the person carrying it."
1,000,000% agree. If I were a face tattoo sort, I would consider having this on my face so everyone who saw me would have to read it.
It does indeed matter if a story was true or false. People who complain about "disinformation" or its right wing equivalent, "fake news," ought to recognize that a culture that loses its ability or willingness to distinguish confirmation bias from reality is inviting political dysfunction.
I remember attending a literary reading in which the speaker claimed that the story she'd concocted about an atrocity was "true" regardless whether it actually happened. That may be sufficient for poets or Hollywood, but it is highly inadequate for informed public policy discourse.
Needless to say, journalistic credibility depends upon the faithful reporting of facts. The nihilistic alternative ("nothing matters") comes right out of the autocrat's playbook.
However, she declared that the story was probably false without having all the facts, and made judgments based on her presumptions.
At the same time, a minor, who cannot make any choices about their life without their parents' consent, should not be forced to carry a child to term who was the result of an abusive rape.
Exactly this.
I hear Bukwark pundits repeatedly define their perspectives as pro life, but they clearly aren’t categorically against abortion in all cases. They’re pro choice along a spectrum of circumstances. I’ve worked in a clinic that provided abortions. Nobody is pro abortion.
A few weeks ago I heard a caller on a radio program (POTUS channel, satellite radio) identify himself as pro-life, but then went on to say he supported every woman's right to make up her own mind about it. This confused me. I said to myself, "this guy is actually pro-choice but he doesn't know it." I now think perhaps a lot of people fall into this category - maybe because the pro-life side has contorted the debate for so long, and the term "pro-life" sounds like a better thing to be?
YES! I had this EXACT discussion with my niece, who grew up in an Evangelical church. She called herself pro-life, but didn't think it was up to her or anyone else to make that decision for someone else. I wrote back to her (this discussion was via text) that she basically just described the quintessential pro-choice position. She just couldn't bring herself to ID as pro-choice, because the Rs have so successfully propagandized that term to be pro-abortion. There is NOTHING that is "prolife" about making abortion illegal; it only leads to death and suffering for living, breathing women.
A couple participants on The Focus Group podcast said that too. Said "I'm pro-life but I think women should be able to decide for themselves." UM WHAT
We need new terminology.
Whoa, some people around here bust a gasket when you try to change wording to be more clear or inclusive.
That said, pro-birth seems to be catching on since people are starting to wake up to the fact that pro-life people aren't actually pro-life at all but are just pro-birth.
I did not get one today or yesterday.
You're not alone.
Pro-Rights and Anti-Rights.
On the other hand, it might have been more journalistically responsible for the Indianapolis star to have broken the story today instead of last week. It would have prevented all the gloating over on the right about Biden deliberately lying about a 10-yea-old to stoke more par5tisan outrage.
Yes I hear you. Charlie and & Mona seem to put effort into being moderate, whereas Cathy is the person who ends up Republican cuz they just can't see why people 'make a fuss.'
Thank you, Sue. I was equally appalled when Joe Walsh tweeted, "Shouldn't the truth matter?" Which implies it was a fake story. The Right lives a fairy tale world where all children are loved, wanted and cherished. They dance in a field of flowers followed by singing birds. The reality is children are abused and raped. And in this case a child was impregnated. But these fascists don't care about the truth or this child. They are unhinged. Their need for power and control outweighs everything else.
It's not even that. It's control over women. Women with children have fewer career possibilities and earn less.
And look how many of them immediately dropped the "it's a lie" line without comment, so they could take up the "he's an illegal immigrant!!!!!" attack line. It's just about finding the next cudgel.
In her short time here, Cathy Young has repeatedly come across as tone-deaf and arrogant. Bulwark readers appreciate different takes, but they don't appreciate ideologues. I think bringing her on was a mistake, as she is alienating readers.
Only the ones who are really far to the left
I don't always agree with her, but ,that is kinda the point
I don't like bubbles, I like hearing other opinions
And also, it is important we don't assume anything is true without more information or react emotionally instead of just using our heads
Agree. As a former former Faux news and other right wing media consumer, all my alarms go full blast with most of what Ms.Young writes. Ideologue is the correct word, I think. She makes some valid points at times, but they are drowned out by her sweeping presumptions and resulting pronouncements. In my case, I am 100 times bitten and 1000 times shy, but I can sniff out bad faith conclusions when I hear them. If I didn't know better, I sometimes think she is just parroting the right wing "just asking questions" backhand narratives.
I do not believe she adds anything of substance to The Bulwark, regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum.
Sigh, I like you a lot, I am surprised you think this
Agreed
TCinLA, I really enjoy your comments; you have a lot of info about topics of interest and express yourself very well--I learn a lot from reading your comments.
I am requesting that you refrain from name-calling people you disagree with, in this case, Cathy Young. It is unpleasant to me, and I have found that when people engage in this, it sometimes causes those who listen to them or in this case, read them, to form a judgement about them that makes it less likely that people will appreciate their otherwise valuable comments.
You could do what I do, get my enraged ya-yas out by yelling imprecations at the page if I'm reading or screen if I'm watching. For example, I just watched "Rebel Without a Cause" for my family Zoom movie discussion, and had a great time yelling insults at the screen when the characters said or did something outrageous.
Yeah, calling names is never ok, and here it is actually one of the rules...no name calling o individuals, stay civil etc
If this keeps up I personally will stop reading the comment section, it seems to be have been taken over by a lot of close minded mean people, my least favorite
And if you guys think they will get rid of Cathy because you guys don't like her, I doubt, they actually like diversity of opinion and not being a bubble
You are decrying name-calling while calling a large group of Bulwark members "close minded mean people" even though they have articulated well-reasoned points that turned out to be right.
How are we supposed to take you seriously?
Also, your writing is, to steal a word, deplorable. Please learn what run-on sentences are and how to use commas properly. Your terrible writing skills undermine my willingness to take you seriously as a thoughtful, intelligent person.
Honestly, you sound like a troll.
Ha ha ha
Ever heard of stream of consciousness writing, that is how I write, I write as I think...you don't have to like it, but, It is my style, you an choose to ignore it if you like...I don't write for anyone's approval by style or substance
I didn't call everyone close minded and mean, just the ones who were...and I thought I said sounded to me, for that matter...if I didn't, it is what I meant...but some posters did nothing but trash Cathy and they often trash other posters who don't agree with them.
You don't have to take me seriously, your choice...I am so far from a troll it is hysterical...I don't like the name calling and meanness, so yes, in this case I called it out...I actually tried to make it less mean than what was being posted...The Bulwark and myself believe in civility , but, I am used to calling it out when people aren't...especially in self moderated forums.
I didn't personally address you at all, yet, you felt the need to trash me personally yourself. Even my writing style.
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. I was attacking the behavior in general, not the person. It is against the rules and also just not a way to interact with people .So, yes, I don't like it, and I am going to say so when I see it. I always do. I think it just perpetuates the divisiveness and tribalism that we really need to tone down if we want to survive as a country. Or get anything done or that matter.
I am generally very polite and word things in non confrontational ways, ( I often get accused of being too nice) but, this is one area where I think it needs called out for the good of The Bulwark and the country. Maybe I didn't phrase it the way I wanted to, but, the opinion stands. We here are trying to have a civil forum, not the angry, nasty twitter version. And that was my only point.
Anyone can choose to not listen, but, I will keep saying so when I see it.
Agreed. It also just blows my mind that journalists somehow think that these tragedies don't actually occur. I wasn't surprised at all that this could have happened whether it did or not. It would have been nice if the response from journalists was "we can't confirm this happened but let's discuss the implications if indeed it did."
I viewed Cathy Young’s column as a relapse and something of a fumble from our Bulwark friends. It would have been fair to privately say “hmmmm”’and take a wait and see approach, but joining in the “just asking questions” chorus was a bad call -- and I thought that before the story was confirmed.
That was not because of whose side it helped or hurt, but because it was the sort of story where the details were going to be slow in coming, and rightly so. Journalists can be myopic (and ruthless, and more than a little cruel and heartless) in putting the story first, but responsible doctors and public officials (yes, some still exist) have other priorities. And that goes ten times for anyone who’s the subject of a story -- journalists do not have your interest in mind. The story unfolded in its due time, even if not to the satisfaction of some reporters and opinion columnists.
Very well said, thank you.
The more I read about Mr Rokita the more it becomes clear that compared to him, the despicable graveside hate performances of the Westboro Baptist church seem like charitable expressions of comfort and support to grieving relatives.
Of course the pro life Todd Rokita needs to protect the sanctity of human life. That's why he told people not to wear masks. That's why he is using the courts to harass Black Lives Matter. That's why he needs to take away the medical licenses of doctors who provide medical care to forcibly impregnated children. He is on a God-ordained mission to get into the US Senate so he can be even more effective and protecting human life.
The answer is for a justly enraged Deity to -- to --
Where is a justly enraged Deity when you need him? Oh... it's a Him, isn't it. Never mind.
My husband and I keep wondering why they brought her onboard. Will was a great addition, but she's not a very good writer, and pretty inarticulate in person.
I will say this about Cathy, she did a great job on her Claremont pieces (that was her right?).
That kind of writing is something I think she could do more of and get a much better response from readers here.
Her attempts at punditry have fallen pretty flat.
She’s even worse on Twitter