[identity profile] k-haldane.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 01:27 am (UTC)(link)
The American Life League says they're in favour of freedom, but they want to determine exactly which choices I'm free to make. At least I *think* that's what the article said.

[identity profile] donutsweeper.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
yes, freedom to do exactly as I say. I'm just still in awe of their interpretation of Krispy Kreme's original statement

[identity profile] k-haldane.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:18 am (UTC)(link)
I'm a bit disappointed in Reuters as well - I thought they had a reputation as a neutral reporting source, but the headline alone was a giveaway as to which side they're on.

[identity profile] donutsweeper.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:19 am (UTC)(link)
You know, that's a very good point. Although, while I'm not a journalist, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a neutral way of reporting that.

[identity profile] k-haldane.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:27 am (UTC)(link)
I suppose you can use the name that most of the 'pro' group use for themselves, and say "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion".

Also I thought they were very blurry with what sections were quotes from the American Life League and what was their editorial opinion.

[identity profile] donutsweeper.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:31 am (UTC)(link)
It's interesting- to compare when pro-life, pro-choice, anti-live, pro-abortion is used

in this case though the American Life League used the term pro-abortion
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11754

[identity profile] k-haldane.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:35 am (UTC)(link)
I suppose as a journalist I could have said: "American Life League declares Krispy Kreme to be pro-abortion", as a statement of fact, while trying not to take sides.

[identity profile] donutsweeper.livejournal.com 2009-01-17 02:36 am (UTC)(link)
yeah, that would have been a lot more presenting the facts as opposed to pushing one side over the other