Let’s just say that I saw — in social media and in personal emails — two very different kinds of comments about the recent speech that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered on the subject of human rights.
Quite a few people, as always, wanted to argue about the contents of the speech itself, especially its urgent emphasis on religious freedom. That’s understandable, in light of waves of images coming out of China of blindfolded Uighur Muslims being shipped off to training camps.
Others were upset about the nature of the relatively short New York Times report about the speech, which ran with this rather blunt lede:
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a divisive speech … calling for the United States to ground its human rights policy more prominently in religious liberty and property rights.
To cut to the chase, some folks were upset by the inclusion of the word “divisive,” saying that this was a loaded, biased word to use in a lede framing the contents of a hard-news story.
Meanwhile, I was actually intrigued by the word “divisive” for a rather different reason, one directly linked to debates about objectivity and fairness in journalism.
You see, if a speech is “divisive” that would imply that people who heard the speech were divided, in terms of their views of its contents. It’s hard to cover a “divisive” speech without presenting accurate, fair-minded content about the views of people on both sides of that divide. Does that make sense?
The problem with the Times peace — #DUH — is that it contains zero input from people who support the views presented by Pompeo and, thus, would be willing to provide information and input that would explain the speech from their point of view.
Maybe this is one of those cases in which there was only one point of view worth quoting, in terms of reacting to Sec. Pompeo’s words?
Amazing to see “God-given rights” in scare quotes
— Michael Wear (@MichaelRWear) July 17, 2020
Here is how the Times team framed these remarks, which were linked to the release of a report from a panel he created last year on how America’s “founding principles” should shape foreign policy.
Human rights scholars have criticized Mr. Pompeo’s panel since its inception, noting it was filled with conservatives who were intent on promoting views against abortion and marriage equality. Critics also warned that it sidestepped the State Department’s internal bureau responsible for promoting human rights abroad. …
At the event …, which opened with a religious invocation from Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York, Mr. Pompeo also waded into the culture war against what President Trump recently called “a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children.”
Abortion and LGBTQ rights are, of course, the kinds of moral and cultural issues that the Times team, for a decade or more, has viewed through an “urban,” “tolerant” lens — which means that there is only one side that is worthy of accurate, fair-minded coverage.
It also didn’t help that he “specifically criticized the 1619 Project, a New York Times initiative re-examining the legacy of slavery.”
So, here is the question: Was this a news story or an analysis piece? There is no label on the report that would settle that issue.
Here is another crucial chunk of material:
Since naming the Commission on Unalienable Rights, as his panel is called, Mr. Pompeo, an evangelical Christian, has expressed confidence that it would create a document that enshrines religious freedom as a central tenet of American human rights policy, which diplomats could refer to for “decades to come.”
But human rights scholars cautioned that this could set a global precedent for other nations to define human rights on their own terms, undermining diplomatic efforts to stop the persecution of religious minorities in places like China, or the promotion of women’s rights in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Also, this:
The panel is also rooted in the vision of Robert P. George, a Princeton professor and leading proponent of “natural law” theory, a term that human rights scholars say is code for “God-given rights” and is commonly deployed in fights to roll back rights for women and L.G.B.T.Q. people.
Now, “natural law” is a massive, complex subject. Who, precisely, are these “human rights scholars” who offered this byte-sized take on this term? Do they have names? Also, do readers need to hear from anyone else on this “divisive” subject, perhaps even the very articulate and social-media friendly George?
Oh, I wondered if — in addition to the views of an “evangelical Christian” in the Trump administration — it might have been relevant to have included the following:
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
That isn’t from the National Association of Evangelicals or some similar group. That’s language in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That source might be relevant, as well, when seeking information linked to this “divisive” topic.
ybvdadminuser
