There are some good points, but this essay states that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. That is an unconscionable factual misrepresentation about a key aspect which every reasoned discussion needs to acknowledge.
I have supported abortion rights my entire adult life, and have voted for the Democratic party for that same lifetime…
There are some good points, but this essay states that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. That is an unconscionable factual misrepresentation about a key aspect which every reasoned discussion needs to acknowledge.
I have supported abortion rights my entire adult life, and have voted for the Democratic party for that same lifetime. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of FAIR.
And I still highly value being honest and accurate.
FAIR should have folks from more than one side of the issue review articles like this for basic accuracy, and ask the author to accurately present the facts, even if freely offering their own opinions on non-factual matters. (That is, I don't suggest that reviewers censor opinions, only press authors to present facts honestly.)
Those opinions could have been presented without distortions of factual matters. Please do better in the future, if you want to be a non-partisan organization. The truth is, we humans have a hard time seeing our own blind spots, so we all need reviewers with different blind spots. I don't want to portray the author as unusual in that regard. But I do want FAIR to do better in helping authors remove the kind of errors which authors have difficulty in seeing in their work.
There are some good points, but this essay states that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. That is an unconscionable factual misrepresentation about a key aspect which every reasoned discussion needs to acknowledge.
I have supported abortion rights my entire adult life, and have voted for the Democratic party for that same lifetime. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of FAIR.
And I still highly value being honest and accurate.
FAIR should have folks from more than one side of the issue review articles like this for basic accuracy, and ask the author to accurately present the facts, even if freely offering their own opinions on non-factual matters. (That is, I don't suggest that reviewers censor opinions, only press authors to present facts honestly.)
Those opinions could have been presented without distortions of factual matters. Please do better in the future, if you want to be a non-partisan organization. The truth is, we humans have a hard time seeing our own blind spots, so we all need reviewers with different blind spots. I don't want to portray the author as unusual in that regard. But I do want FAIR to do better in helping authors remove the kind of errors which authors have difficulty in seeing in their work.