As impossible as it may seem, the issue of the media's role in politics continues to grow more contentious with each new issue that arises. Over the past few weeks, our community has engaged in thoughtful conversation over whether or not this powerful presence is a benefit to society through its ability to inform the public and keep politicians accountable, or counterproductive to the political climate through spreading bias and misinformation, intentionally or unintentionally. Here's a few highlights from what people had to say.
From the Op-eds
The media’s hard approach on the government is vital and should be supported. Important social advocacy campaigns would have had no impact if the media had not played its part. From anti-tobacco campaigns to issues like climate change and global warming, all have been put up by today’s media, to make the common man aware of his world. With the technological advancements, the effects of media have increased to a whole new level. With apps, an...
This week, members of the Bridge the Divide community weighed in with their thoughts one of the most quickly growing threats to national security. It was also the first week with the format including a roundtable on the same topic. As such there was plenty to talk about. Here are some of the highlights from what readers though the response should be.
From the Op-eds:
"The abuse of human rights is the primary reason for us to intervene in North Korean politics, while the secondary reason is to maintain the balance of power in South-East Asia. The strained diplomatic ties between North Korea and South Korea cause the exploitation of millions of innocent lives, and the tense relations between China and North Korea are important calls to action for the international community. A revolution is needed in order for North Korea to regain its basic fundamental rights, and for this revolution to take place, leaders have to wake up a revolutionary spirit among the international community."
This week's Room for Debate took on perhaps the most polarizing and hotly contested political issue: Abortion. As usual we are so proud of all those who wrote and commented who helped, our mission to unite a global community to have a civil discourse about such a contentious issue. Discussion topics ranged from the expected pro-life vs pro-choice, to a broader range of topics including conditional abortions, international policies on the issue, and how religion plays a factor. Here are a few highlights from a week full of constructive discussion:
From the Op-eds:
"In 2015, a total of 229,715 babies were born to women aged 15-19. Although these teenagers decided to go through with their pregnancy, they should be given the option of abortion no matter what. When you are 16, you are in the middle of high school with an immense amount of pressure riding on your shoulders. Teenagers that have to deal with a pregnancy while in high school should have places like Planned Parenthood to go to, to...
This week, polarization is omnipresent in the legislative process. With publications like the Washington Post featuring headlines reading, "Abortion is now an issue with no middle ground," it is clear that it is harder and harder for people to come together and voice their opinions in a civil and constructive manner. Thankfully, that wasn't the case on our Discussions platform.
This week featured a wide range of interests from the merits and flaws of the Affordable Care Act and single payer, to concerns about healthcare affordability and access to the poor, to Planned Parenthood and abortion rights. Here are just a few of the highlights from a week of fruitful discussion:
From the Op-Eds
"A similar analogy to the Affordable Care Act is Common Core because rather than the state setting their own standards; the federal government dictates everything."
- Elaine Li, Texas
"Single-payer’s bureaucratic requirements would stifle any existing innovation by decreasing incentives and thwarting...