Sloppy Thinking

Social reliance on mass media for information on political choices conveys some responsibility, so important to note how widespread sloppy thinking seems to be, calling the would-be professionals to task. A glaring current example can be found in the coverage by every major Albuquerque tv station news departments of an imminent local special election.

First, seemingly to their credit, they all reported accurately that early voters were having an extremely difficult time with the complicated ballot, with the major proposal containing multiple clauses, sub-clauses, paragraphs & sub-paragraphs, to a total of over 1500 words, by the end of which many voters no longer knew what “For” or “Against,” the two choices, meant.

Indeed, that would seem to be a serious problem for any ballot proposal, regardless of its subject, or how it might have been sold. As any judge or lawyer will point out, how a statute is actually worded ultimately makes a difference. In this case, when the stations inquired, the county clerk pointed out that officials had no legal alternative but to present the wording exactly as received on the citizen petition that required the proposal be put to the people for a vote.

You might think that any proposed law confusing enough that voters had trouble understanding what it meant, did and implied in outcomes would speak for itself. One might even assume that sooner rather than later, the courts will have to address the implied confusions, potentially reducing the entire exercise to one in citizen futility, everyone’s complete waste of time and public resources.

Here is where, rather incredibly, each of the stations got it backwards, and wrong, thanks to a sloppy thinking that totally ignored everything mentioned above, including their own reporting, to advise viewers: “If you’re for a  ban on late-term abortions over 20 weeks, you should vote “For” the proposal; if you’re against a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, you should vote “Against.”

Not a single one suggested, “If you’re in favor of confusing & complicated proposals wasting public resources, where nobody really knows what they will end up meaning, you should vote ‘For.’ The same if you’re in favor of laws you really don’t understand & have no real sense of what effects passage will have on the ground, like a big waste time & public resources for which real needs exist. Otherwise, vote ‘Against.'”

Missing this point entirely does a disservice to the community & mis-advises readers by offering a patently false “translation” of what the proposal states. It muddies the waters while pretending to clarify, spreading a confused perspective. There really is a difference.