All fair points, and you could make many, many more. So could the other side. In fact, that would make for a great article, because people like you and me care deeply about whether innocent people are being killed arbitrarily. A fair, factual debate about how often that likely occurs would make for a great read.
Wait a second, isn't that what we just read? No, no it's not. If it were, the text I quoted could've been the title because, whether or not you're right, 99% is NINETY-NINE PERCENT and it deserves a goddamn explanation. That much we can agree on.
No, we didn't just read an article about the death penalty. We just read an article about the best way to abolish it. That article takes as a given that the death penalty is immoral and that it should be abolished regardless of the opinions of the nation's citizens. Whether you personally agree or disagree with those presumptions is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, as you're well aware, plenty of people don't and you don't just write them off as stupid or unimportant. They're citizens just like you are.
To write the article we just read is to believe that their opinions should be ignored. The New York Times is telling you and me, "Anyone who thinks the death penalty is in any way acceptable is a hick or a redneck or a retard-- you know, the same people who DON'T read The New York Times. Not YOU though. YOUR opinion matters. We can tell because YOU read The New York Times. YOU think it's immoral, which is why YOU want to read an article about how to get it the hell out of here, opposition be damned. Isn't that right?"
Even Fox Fucking News doesn't report on, say, the gay marriage debate in this manner. They may be heavily biased to one side, but at least they concede there's a debate to be had.
Other side? I didn’t write that comment because I’m on any particular side. I’m actually all for abolishing the death penalty but that doesn’t really matter. I think this is fine article about a Japanise minister’s campaign to abolish the death penalty, padded with some background info.
Wait a second, isn't that what we just read? No, no it's not. If it were, the text I quoted could've been the title because, whether or not you're right, 99% is NINETY-NINE PERCENT and it deserves a goddamn explanation. That much we can agree on.
No, we didn't just read an article about the death penalty. We just read an article about the best way to abolish it. That article takes as a given that the death penalty is immoral and that it should be abolished regardless of the opinions of the nation's citizens. Whether you personally agree or disagree with those presumptions is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because, as you're well aware, plenty of people don't and you don't just write them off as stupid or unimportant. They're citizens just like you are.
To write the article we just read is to believe that their opinions should be ignored. The New York Times is telling you and me, "Anyone who thinks the death penalty is in any way acceptable is a hick or a redneck or a retard-- you know, the same people who DON'T read The New York Times. Not YOU though. YOUR opinion matters. We can tell because YOU read The New York Times. YOU think it's immoral, which is why YOU want to read an article about how to get it the hell out of here, opposition be damned. Isn't that right?"
Even Fox Fucking News doesn't report on, say, the gay marriage debate in this manner. They may be heavily biased to one side, but at least they concede there's a debate to be had.