Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
USA Today Misleads About Roberts' "Equal-pay" Position
Headline: Roberts scoffed at equal-pay theory
As an assistant White House counsel in 1984, John Roberts scoffed at the notion that men and women should earn equal pay in jobs of comparable importance, and he belittled three female Republican members of Congress who promoted that idea to the Reagan administration.
That's the headline & first paragraph of yesterday's USA Today article (via Yahoo! News). On the face, it sounds like he's against equal pay for equal work. But a closer look reveals something different.
In fact, he was responding to a concept promoting unequal pay for equal work--described as comparable value pay: "The women had said that the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' had not sufficiently boosted women's wages..."
Roberts characterizes it as "a radical redistributive concept," and that's exactly what it is.
Consider this, from CAMERA.org:
Headlines are the first, and sometimes only, news items seen by readers and should provide the essence of a news story. While they must capture the reader's attention, headlines should always be accurate and specific.
Accurate headlines would be "Roberts scoffed at comparable-value theory"; "Roberts calls comparable-value theory a radical redistributive concept"; "Roberts rejects controversial equal-pay theory"; etc.
CQ documents another media smear.
8/20, Powerline: Washington Post takes the same cheap shot.
Comments:
(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)
Post a Comment
<< Home