Ready... Set... Wonder!
Seems the Wall Street Journal is the latest paper to face backlash from employees for printing objectionable opinion column; this comes on the heels of the New York Times facing a similar experience for publishing an
opinion essay written by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton; the piece has been updated with comments from the paper about the editing process and the potential for the piece having been rejected.
Over at the WJS, according to
this article from The Hill, employees at the paper wrote the publisher that Opinion's "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers' trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources." One of the Op-Eds that was cited as an example? That would be one written by the vice president- go figure.
So, what's the wondering? Simply this: What would happen if employees at Fox and Friends, or Hannity's show, or Rachel Maddow's, or even at the White House, decided to do the same thing, and call out some of the fact-challenged silliness that gets pushed to us on a daily basis? Would those employees still be employed, and respected? I wonder.
Speaking of opinions, Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo had one published in the Washington Post last week. Here's the third paragraph.
Never before have America's founding principles been under such relentless assault. For decades, our institutions of higher education have sought to debunk or disown them. Last summer, the NY Times launched the 1619 Project, which contends that the essence of America is entwined with slavery and racism. In recent weeks, justified outrage at the actions of a rogue Minneapolis policeman has given way to outrageous efforts to erase American history by tearing down statues of our nation’s founders.
I wonder if the Washington Post doesn't require facts in support of opinions from important people? For example, where are the facts supporting that the murderer of George Floyd was a 'rogue' policeman? Where are the facts about institutions of higher learning? And are we really to accept at face value that there has never been this kind of assault on our founding principles?
And I also wonder about this statement made by Pompeo in
his speech the other day.
The founders changed the course of history when they established a nation built on the premise that government exists not to diminish or cancel the individual’s rights at the whims of those in power, but to secure them.
Coming from a member of the administration that is fully supporting the cancellation of rights of certain Americans, that statement is, well, problematic, I think. As are these which came later.
And so we are forced to grapple with the tough choices about which rights to promote and how to think about this.
Americans have not only unalienable rights, but also positive rights, rights granted by governments, courts, multilateral bodies. Many are worth defending in light of our founding; others aren’t.
Who gets to determine which rights are not worthy of defending? Who decides that certain people are not allowed to participate in our founding principles, of our being created equal, of our having the same unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I have to wonder about that...
Opinions, and disagreements about them, are part and parcel of who we are as Americans. The rights that Pompeo seems so concerned about both
allow and
encourage us to disagree, to debate, to challenge, and to protest. We are allowed to be angry, as Americans, and to fight to make our country better.
Rather than considering that a "relentless assault" on our founding principles, I wonder why we can't just call it patriotism?
America: Love it, and fight for it. To do anything less is to fail our founders, and to abdicate our rights. I don't wonder about that in the least.
.jpg)
