As I was driving home from work they were talking on NPR about the Todd Akin comments vis-a-vis "legitimate rape", wherein (as i'm sure you all know) he alleged that it isn't necessary to build protections for rape victims into anti-abortion legislation, because rape victims can't get pregnant.
Anyway, we all know the comment, and I don't have anything more to add to it. What bothered me so much is in this 2 or 3 minute segment they referred to his "controversial remarks" several times, and called it a "gaffe". It is neither. In order for there to be a controversy, there needs to be evidence, even very specious evidence, that the dissenting opinion has any kind of credence. Akin's remarks aren't controversial; they're wrong. They should be stated as such by the media. To call them controversial implies that there is a controversy over the issue. There isn't.
Second, don't call this a gaffe. A gaffe is a mistake or a faux pas of some sort. He didn't show up to a party with brown shoes and a black belt. He stated an incorrect belief that is rooted in lack of understanding of biology and--probably moreso--misogyny. Claiming that he made a gaffe leads the listener to believe that he said something that was a misstatement, or perhaps improperly worded. These types of euphemisms have been legitimizing (no pun intended) false debates for a long time, and I'm really fucking sick of it.
This is something insidious.
Somewhere along the line we Americans seemed to have raised opinion up over fact, as if it were a matter of civility.
The media is attacked when they don't do so, and IMO as a result, are convinced that simply pointing out that something is dead wrong is to editorialize.
You should really write NPR. They may read it in their feedback segment.
note to self, stop wear brown shoes and black belt. Akin just stated what many in his party believes in too plain of speech that is a sort of faux pas.
Our media shouldn't be afraid of politicians but rather the reverse. As it is, NPR has the most to fear as the GOP would use any negative portrayal of their party as fuel for de-funding.
I run with a republican and as we drive to and from our running trail we play a game. We listen to NPR's Dian Rehm shows Friday News Roundup and count the number of comments that negatively portray both the left and the right. It's amazing how equitable the show is. For every Todd Akin, there is a John Edwards. Obviously, this is just one show but I think she does a nice job of calling something like this what it is, which is flat out "idiotic".
I agree with mk, you should write them.
I'd like to offer a differing opinion.
I listened to NPR on the day it broke out, and here was the full quote:
- It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.
Yes, it's ignorant, but the point is that he never stated it as a fact. While everyone is focusing on "legitimate rape", the actual point he was trying to convey is that "punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child". You might disagree with it, but remember that he's not the only one holding that position - Paul Ryan, for instance, supports banning all abortion, including in case of rape and incest.
So is it a "controversial remark"? Yes, because it sparked the whole abortion debate, which was not really being discussed at that time.
So is it a "gaffe"? I think so - he said something he should not have said because he did not know what he's stalking about.
And let's face it - while it would be nice if politicians knew the facts about everything they voted on. But they don't. They just know what their lobbyists laid it out for them. Take net neutrality, for instance, or software patents.