Opposite day at the Iowa legislature
Journalists should avoid it
When our kids were young, they would occasionally declare “It’s Opposite Day!” and then go about saying the exact opposite of what they really meant.
It went something like this.
Annie: “Okay if I change the channel and watch what I want to watch?”
Ben: “Yes!”
Annie changes the channel. Ben protests and says because it’s Opposite Day, his yes actually meant no. Julia: “Because you said, ‘It’s Opposite Day that actually means it’s NOT Opposite Day, so yes means yes.” Ben: “But if it’s NOT Opposite Day, that means it really IS Opposite Day, so get your hands off the remote!” And on and on it would go until everyone’s brains hurt.
These days, my brain is hurting plenty reading about the Iowa Legislature. I feel like I’m back in Opposite Day hell. Election integrity. School choice. Religious freedom. Pro-life. School safety. Good government. All these terms bandied about that are the exact opposite of what the legislature is really doing.
“It takes a lot of nerve…”
The one that really gets me is “election integrity”, the bill that bans ballot drop boxes, changes the window for early voting (again!) and most offensive of all, would allow convicted felons to run for federal office. Gosh, I wonder who the Republicans had in mind when they proposed that?
The bill’s sponsor, Republican state representative Bobby Kaufmann, works for Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. According to the Des Moines Register, he had the audacity to tell a House subcommittee the bill has nothing to do with Trump and his multiple criminal indictments! Kaufmann said his motivation for the bill is “maintaining the highest level of election integrity in Iowa.”
Democratic Representative Adam Zabner responded, “It takes quite a lot of nerve to call a bill an election-integrity bill when the point of the bill is to let felons run for office. And particularly someone like Donald Trump, who has so little integrity.” Amen.
So many of the labels hung on bills mean the exact opposite of their intent. School choice is only choice for a small percentage of Iowans. For everyone else, it reduces money for public schools, limiting choice for students who see fewer teachers and fewer offered courses. Religious freedom means some Iowans can use their beliefs to discriminate against people they don’t approve of. The “good government” bill severely limiting the power of Iowa’s only statewide Democrat holding office, auditor Rob Sand, is terrible government.
Journalists should not play into one side’s hands
The problem is when these phrases find their way into news stories. I realize that legislation can often be complicated and it’s easy for reporters to just use a conversational bill title rather than explaining more fully what a bill actually does. They should resist that because it plays right into the hands of those in power who want to cloak what they’re doing in some pleasant-sounding catchphrase.
This is not a new struggle for journalists. Early in my career, news stories described those involved in the abortion struggle as either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Those opposed to abortion decided it didn’t help their cause to be anti anything, so they dreamed up the phrase pro-life and insisted that’s what they be called in news stories. The other side then decided that pro-choice helped their cause more than pro-abortion, and they likewise insisted that’s what they be called. Since both sides decided on their own self-described terminology, journalists eventually went with it since at least there was parity.
Reporters should take the time to give a fuller description of what a bill really does. It’s not that time-consuming to avoid “school choice” or “vouchers” and instead describe the law as “providing public tax dollars to families choosing to send their children to private schools.” That’s fair and it’s accurate.
Reporters should not call a bill to arm schoolteachers a “school safety” bill. Not everyone agrees that it makes schools safer. Don’t fall for the sponsors’ propaganda. Don’t fall for opponents’ propaganda either. Just take the time to say what the bill would do.
Most reporters don’t have an agenda when they use these terms. They’re busy, deadlines are short and space for news stories is limited so they take the easy way out without realizing they’re playing right into one side’s hands.
It’s up to journalists to protect their readers and viewers from Opposite Day at the Iowa legislature. Once that’s done, we can start talking about Moms for Liberty and Iowa’s new state slogan, “Freedom to Flourish.” Don’t get me started.
Please check out some of the other writers in the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. I’d point out a few: Ed Tibbets column “Along the Mississippi” has been doing a great job holding Davenport city officials’ feet to the fire on a really outrageous and expensive payout to the former city administrator.
And Cheryl Tevis writes this week in her column “Unfinished Business” on a huge state-subsidized fertilizer plant that looks like is going to the already too-big Koch Industries. Cheryl’s columns are always substantive.
We are indeed living in Opposite Day hell, and it not only hurts my brain, it hurts my heart. Thank you, Dave, for perfectly expressing how so many of us feel.
And that language finds itself into headlines--headlines, which often use the more exciting or sensational language of advocates. Use of these pithy descriptions also find a home in social media. Now, with social media, too many Iowans get their news from headlines or online notifications--10 words or 5 seconds of reading text. Great work Dave