>From what little I know from press quotes, it looks like Adrienne did a
fine job last night and probably had some effect on the thinking of the
immediate audience - a caveat, though; a friend on another list was able
to attend the simulcast at the university. Walking home, he overheard 4
students in front of him talking about how impressive Singer was in his
arguments. 20 minutes of conversation with them yielded some concessions
that Adrienne raised some real concerns that needed attention. There's a
legitimate question as to whether the "average student" hears the same
debate as listeners coming from a comprehensive background in disability
issues.
However, most people are going to be getting their information from
mainstream media coverage - and the samples I have indicate that the
impact on the popular press (and the campus press) was minimal in regard
to how important or convincing Adrienne's arguments were - in terms of
what the press chose to report.
Princeton is likely to think that they have done their bit to provide
"balance" in regard to having done this one debate and that this should be
the the end of the matter. It isn't.
This probably goes without saying, but it is going to take a *lot* more to
have an impact on coverage of the Singer controversy. This coverage in
turn influences public perception of the issues. We'll need a lot more
debates like last night's and more grassroots activism.
But this is a pretty good start. Singer and Princeton have both wanted to
label *any* opposition as coming from "right to life" - Singer was still
telling this to Australian papers a few weeks ago. For now, they have
been effectively been prevented from making that claim.
I'll forward some of the coverage to the list shortly.
Stephen Drake
Not Dead Yet
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|