Comments on: Time Magazine really wants you to stay married. No matter what.

By: foolery

foolery — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:41:23 +0000

Just heard a fantastic interview with Jim Lehrer (“The News Hour,” PBS). It was on “City Arts And Lectures,” a radio program originating in San Francisco and picked up by our NPR affiliate (may be national?). It’s worth trying to find should they podcast it or rebroadcast, etc.

Jim Lehrer is an old school journalist, on scene in Dallas when Kennedy was shot. The M.O. of “The News Hour” is to VERY CLEARLY SEPARATE three things:
1. news reportage (just the facts, Ma’am)
2. analysis
3. opinion

They do this by NEVER allowing someone delivering news to provide any analysis, and opinion is provided by guests only, and clearly separated.

That’s how I want my news. It’s rare these days.

Great thoughts, Marcy! Sorry I went on and on . . .

By: Aracely

Aracely — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:17:15 +0000

This is something that I feel so strongly about. Count me in as one who believes that many of the problems that we are facing in our society stem from the diminishing value of marriage. I’m going to have to pick up Time and read the article. I do agree that the majority of people that I know are obtaining news and other info from blogs. It’s chaning print media and this is just one way- like Suz said- of testing the waters.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:34:47 +0000

Truth is truth. Even though there are exceptions, it doesn’t negate the overall truth. Divorce is horribly detrimental to children and women…and therefore society as a whole. It has been documented. Children of divorce are far more susceptible to being victims of molestation and other sexual crimes. I don’t think it is editorializing to point out truth. I read a book called “The Divorce Culture,” which really pointed out all of the ways that society is harmed by divorce. It is so sad.

By: Heather - Hopelessly Flawed

Heather - Hopelessly Flawed — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:38:23 +0000

UGH. Just re-read and felt the need to point out that I do actually know how to spell BIASED, I just can’t type.

By: Martha

Martha — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:04:48 +0000

Historically, people stayed married because they could not get divorced for ethical, moral, religious, financial or social reasons. We find in the pre-information society that people just left their marriages and went to start over somewhere else. The parties were listed as married but separated. How does that compare to current divorce statistics and how does it skew the statistics in the favor of marriage, even though it’s not completely accurate. It’s an interesting question to ponder.

As for the article, I have seen so many news outlets go the way of blog-style reporting that it is probably here to stay. It’s unfortunate that we don’t get the benefit of unbiased journalism as often as we should because people need to form their own opinions rather than be fed an opinion and expected to espouse it.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:53:04 +0000

Wow! Hardcore article! I agree with the majority of it as well but am shocked that it is not categorized in TIME as an “editorial”.
The question remains, and it’s a good one: What is the purpose of marriage? Have to think on that one for a good while…

By: Meg

Meg — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:12:12 +0000

I can’t personally argue with the quote, though I do think there are exceptions. It’s a generalization. And yes, more of an editorial statement than fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I’m thankful that I have a strong marriage, but I’m not sure I would stick it out no matter what if our misery in being together was making the kids miserable too. And if he cheated? Things would be miserable.

By: Gina

Gina — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:38:29 +0000

I haven’t read the article so I may be getting the context all wrong but I’ll just comment on the quote you’ve given here. I think many would agree that divorce or “the collapse of marriage” has brought unbelievable hardship on many people (men, women and children alike). I agree with you that there are single women (and men) who are potentially better off divorced than they were with their either abusive or neglectful spouses but I will venture to opine that those would be, sadly, the minority rather than the majority. Like so many of us I know many divorced people and I can honestly say, none of them would say that they are “better off”. They do, instead use terms like, “making it”, “things are getting better”, “I failed”, “it’s extremely painful for the children”, “is is so ugly” and “the divorce cost my kids their college fund”.

With regard to the statement, “it hurts children”, studies have proven recently that the negative effects of divorce aren’t felt in the life of a child fully until they are well into their 30’s. So happy children of divorced parents does not necessarily happy adults make.

“It reduces mother’s financial security…” Yes, most (not all) of the time it does. Absolutely I agree.

And yes, statistically you will find that the underclass suffer enormous strain from divorce.

So I can’t say that I see the unbalanced tendencies that you see because most to all of what the author is saying here has been substantiated statistically.

Just my two (or more) cents.

That being said, I love your creative blog and I’m so glad to have found it and look forward to meeting you at the Blogger’s Ball! I know you can’t wait to meet me now! : )

Keep up the great work, love it.

By: Carolyn McClelland

Carolyn McClelland — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:50:06 +0000

Thoughtful perspective and great questions, Marce.

By: suz@ Alive in Wonderland

suz@ Alive in Wonderland — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:53:51 +0000

I think this will become more and more the norm. With blogging becoming the way a lot of people are getting their information now, it is natural that it will flow to print. I think these outlets are testing the waters. Seeing what is successful. What strikes a cord with people. It’s a process.

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:38:37 +0000

I’d have to see the magazine to have a better feel for it, but I’d say that was an editorial and not a news story, so the opinion was ok with me. If it was presented as news coverage then that’s different.

Media as a whole does this – everyone, everywhere. Check out CNN or Fox News, the New York Times, etc. They all have ‘factual news coverage’ that is terribly bised. At this point we’re left with the choice of watching/reading whatever we agree with, rather than what is neutral. I’m not sure when I last read a legitimately neutral news story. Sad.