To be fair, she tweets and uploads videos all the time, as she is a prolific mixed-media blogger. This just happened to be something she decided to tweet about. Her tweets included statements such as, "cramps are getting a bit more persistent" and "definitely bleeding now."
What happened next was the unexpected part. Jackson has been deluged with reply-tweets, emails, and YouTube comment posts by both people in favor of her decision to be public, as well as those who are very upset with her for not only having an abortion but also for being so unapologetic about it.
This is in large part because Jackson's Twitter, YouTube and Blog are major vehicles for her to espouse atheism and promote it quite heavily. Her blog is rife with anti-religious sentiments of all sorts. In the spirit of being even-handed, it is worth mentioning that she claims to have been part of what she describes as a "fundamentalist cult" which was run by her grandmother during her youth. It seems much of her resentment (deserved or otherwise) for religion in general is derived from that experience. Also worth mentioning is that she was in an at-risk situation and was not advised to continue the pregnancy.
Here is one of the YouTube posts that has garnered over one-hundred thousand hits during the last week.
For more, you can peruse her video uploads on YouTube, follow her on Twitter, or read her blog.
Counterpoint to this is another recent event driven by the argument between pro-life/pro-choice camps. It isn't news to anyone that CBS aired an ad created by Focus on the Family featuring Tim Tebow and his mother which detailed her decision to carry her pregnancy to term even though her physician recommended terminating due to health complications.
Part of the controversy was of course the fact that it was a pro-life ad, when this sort of ad material has been rejected by CBS in the past. Two commercials in particular have been discussed in the news regarding this. One, refused for the Super Bowl, was a gay dating site ad that they rejected for somewhat vague reasons. Less recently was an ad for the United Church of Christ (there were a few). They essentially show churches turning away people for various reasons (minorities, handicapped, homeless, homosexuals, etc.), ending with the phrase that "Jesus didn't turn people away and neither do they".
A few questions:
- When viewing these circumstances together, it is fairly clear all parites have agendas (Jackson and Focus on the Family/Tebow). Do any of them go too far?
- By these families sharing their personal decisions and struggles--by putting human faces on both the pro-life and pro-choice circumstances--do they help or hinder their causes?
- Is the backlash against either Jackson or CBS/Focus on the Family/Tebow fair? What about their First Amendment rights? When one elects to "go public" with one's personal life, regardless of the reasons, does one not open oneself up to both congratulations and ridicule?
- Clearly, blogging, YouTube-ing, and tweeting are fairly open and uncensored methods for publishing an opinion and there are relatively few if any costs (in terms of pay-for-service) for anyone to express themselves in this fashion. As it relates to placing ads on major networks such as CBS, however, is there a double-standard at work here? Clearly most news networks are terribly skewed to one political perspective or another, but as it relates to paying for advertisement, is it appropriate for CBS or others to accept one ad which tailors to one opinion while not affording other paying customers the same opportunity to present their product/views?
AESKEPULUS ATROPOS
Posts
1 comments:
Based in the article I expected the video to be more shocking, and in truth it wasn’t so much. She made a claim that her health out her at high risk to try and have a baby. Does this alone make it right? That question is a little more complicated than what the situation actually is. The situation is that she has a son. Her decision was grounded in the fact that if she died in child birth he wouldn’t have a mother to care for him. Whether you are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice I would hope you could see at least a shred of nobility in her decision.
QUESTIONS
• When viewing these circumstances together, it is fairly clear all parites have agendas (Jackson and Focus on the Family/Tebow). Do any of them go too far?
Not really, it is just a political statement
• By these families sharing their personal decisions and struggles--by putting human faces on both the pro-life and pro-choice circumstances--do they help or hinder their causes?
I doubt it. Most people already have an opinion on this issue that probably not changed either way.
• Is the backlash against either Jackson or CBS/Focus on the Family/Tebow fair?
Of course it’s fair. This is America
What about their First Amendment rights?
I don’t think that the backlash actually violated Jackson’s rights with regard to the 1st amendment-at least not without further evidence. As for being denied a commercial during the Super Bowl I would say no violation here either. It may have been unethical to be judgmental, but to my knowledge the 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee advertising privileges.
When one elects to "go public" with one's personal life, regardless of the reasons, does one not open oneself up to both congratulations and ridicule?
Sure. This probably best shown with a Venn diagram but I am entirely too lazy for that.
• Clearly, blogging, YouTube-ing, and tweeting are fairly open and uncensored methods for publishing an opinion and there are relatively few if any costs (in terms of pay-for-service) for anyone to express themselves in this fashion. As it relates to placing ads on major networks such as CBS, however, is there a double-standard at work here?
I don’t necessarily think that having the money to pay for an ad guarantees one a right to have it put on TV. I think that CBS as a business has to weigh the impact that any ad will have on its future advertising and ratings.
• Clearly most news networks are terribly skewed to one political perspective or another, but as it relates to paying for advertisement, is it appropriate for CBS or others to accept one ad which tailors to one opinion while not affording other paying customers the same opportunity to present their product/views?
Not ethical but not illegal either. Although, from a business ethics perspective, one can make an argument that a business has a duty to its shareholders. That may not apply hear. I don’t know if you can even own stock in CBS.
Post a Comment