![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taratemimaSo, short story. A copy editor from the New York Post gets fired for adding what the writer called 'pro-life' language to her story.
Now, there is some debate on whether or not it violated copy editing ethics, whether libertarianism encompasses anti-abortion, whether the after effects of IVF (the ova that do not take and die) should be discussed, and whether or not 'liberal bias' (oh good Lord, that not again) is given a pass.
Then I realize . . .
I knew the woman. Not personally, but when I was making the Butterscott website, I put in her comments.
So, all these are good issues to talk about, speaking as a screaming childfree leftie who still holds some respect for, but doesn't always agree with, those who hold to a 'seamless garment of life': not just anti-abortion and assisted death, but the death penalty and war. Inserting terms you think should be used (I suspect the writer wanted to focus more on, pardon the snark, the 'miiiiiiiiiiirrrrracle of liiiiiiiiiife' of the baby brought to term) may or may not be the job of the copy editor. It looks more like the job for the ombundsmen, but then again, I think major newspapers have corporate bias.
I do wonder. If an Orthodox Jewish copyeditor inserted their own views on Jews for Jesus and got fired for it, would there be such an outcry from conservatives?
Why is it a 'liberal' thing and not a corporate thing? Biotech stands to make lots of cash from IVF and stem cell research from the ova that doesn't take.
(And what is up with people who have no problem about the aftereffect of IVF but do have a problem with stem cell research)
Would the righties rallying around her rally around Eason Jordan?
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values White House living room. It says something about the press when prostitution is a more honorable profession.
Let's face it, Ms. Eden and Mr. 'Gannon' both show a very big fissure between religious conservatives and conservatives who like religion as long as it doesn't get in the way of money and power. Better politicos than I should know how to exploit this.
Now, there is some debate on whether or not it violated copy editing ethics, whether libertarianism encompasses anti-abortion, whether the after effects of IVF (the ova that do not take and die) should be discussed, and whether or not 'liberal bias' (oh good Lord, that not again) is given a pass.
Then I realize . . .
I knew the woman. Not personally, but when I was making the Butterscott website, I put in her comments.
So, all these are good issues to talk about, speaking as a screaming childfree leftie who still holds some respect for, but doesn't always agree with, those who hold to a 'seamless garment of life': not just anti-abortion and assisted death, but the death penalty and war. Inserting terms you think should be used (I suspect the writer wanted to focus more on, pardon the snark, the 'miiiiiiiiiiirrrrracle of liiiiiiiiiife' of the baby brought to term) may or may not be the job of the copy editor. It looks more like the job for the ombundsmen, but then again, I think major newspapers have corporate bias.
I do wonder. If an Orthodox Jewish copyeditor inserted their own views on Jews for Jesus and got fired for it, would there be such an outcry from conservatives?
Why is it a 'liberal' thing and not a corporate thing? Biotech stands to make lots of cash from IVF and stem cell research from the ova that doesn't take.
(And what is up with people who have no problem about the aftereffect of IVF but do have a problem with stem cell research)
Would the righties rallying around her rally around Eason Jordan?
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values White House living room. It says something about the press when prostitution is a more honorable profession.
Let's face it, Ms. Eden and Mr. 'Gannon' both show a very big fissure between religious conservatives and conservatives who like religion as long as it doesn't get in the way of money and power. Better politicos than I should know how to exploit this.
