Journalism
From the first page of today's Wall Street Journal: "The U.S. lags far behind other nations in paid leave and other work benefits, a study at Harvard and McGill found."
Would it not be more objective to say: "The U.S. has different laws than other nations about paid leave and other work benefits," or even, "U.S. policymakers disagree with ther counterparts in other nations about what paid leave and other work benefits ought to be."
The Journal's version is only fair and balanced if one believes that "progress" is always in the direction of socialism.
You've touched on something pretty important here, I think. It's not just "the press," though -- it's the American people in general now. It's as if we've forgotten how *different* America was supposed to be.
We once understood the concept of America as an experiment in liberty and individualism. We understood that meant not pretending that life can be perfect. It meant that liberty was important enough, in and of itself, to accept its consequences with its benefits.
That's not the case anymore. Ask the typical 21-year-old why America didn't long ago embrace government-run health care as other countries did, and they're likely to BLAME it on something: this stubborn industry, these thoughtless politicians, that strain of backwards thinking.
Rarely will you find the one who questions the essential premise of the thing: It's not so much about America actively not-embracing government health care, as it is (was) about America actively embracing liberty. It's not like we were just some thoughtless country; on the contrary, our founding represented the highest pinnacle of human thought. Freedom, independence, individualism -- these weren't just nifty buzzwords. They were very real, and very deliberate, and very important.
For a variety of reasons, most of us don't grasp that anymore. That includes your typical 21-year-old and your typical pro journalist, your next-door-neighbors and the folks on the other side of the country. We used to look at Europe and intuitively grasp that we'd set out to be something very different; today we're puzzled, even irritated, that we're not like them.
Richard, good point but you'd be a terrible headline writer.
Mr. Adams, if you really believe that "paid leave and work benefits" take us "in the direction of socialism," - and I'm guessing that's problematic for you - then perhaps you should do your part, and decline your own paid leave and benefits, for the good of America.
[Also, thanks to FoxNews, the phrase "fair and balanced" is just a joke best avoided in serious discussions of journalism]
"if you really believe that "paid leave and work benefits" take us "in the direction of socialism," - and I'm guessing that's problematic for you - then perhaps you should do your part, and decline your own paid leave and benefits, for the good of America."
This is a bogus argument. We've been forced to pay for government-mandated benefits many times over, in the form of higher taxes, higher prices and lower wages. Why should we not collect what we've already paid for?
Look for this argument to be used in a big way should--God forbid--health care "reform" become law. After all private insurers have been driven out of business, or their prices forced so high that only the wealthiest can afford private health insurance, we'll have liberals telling us that if we had any principles we'd stop seeking health care.
- then perhaps you should do your part, and decline your own paid leave and benefits, for the good of America.
My insurance and pension are as much a part of my compensation as my wages. The question at hand is whether and to what degree it is advisable to constrain the discretion of employers as to the manner in which their employees are compensated, a constraint that limits opportunities for a certain class of workers as compensation has a legislated floor.