‘Popular Science’ vs. Jenny McCarthy, or, How Not To Engage In Cultural Dialogue

Last updated on: July 18, 2013 at 11:38 am by Jason Morehead

‘Popular Science’ vs. Jenny McCarthy, or, How Not To Engage In Cultural Dialogue 2013-07-18T11:38:53-06:00 Jason Morehead

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It was recently announced that television personality and former model Jenny McCarthy would become one of the hosts of the daytime talkshow The View. Most of the time, this sort of announcement would probably fly under most people’s radars, but McCarthy’s hiring has prompted a not insignificant amount of criticism and backlash. And not, as you might expect, because of McCarthy’s past experience as a Playboy model. Rather, it’s because she is a well-known and popular critic of child vaccinations.

Critics of the anti-vaccine movement fear that giving McCarthy a higher profile will allow her to spread more disinformation and falsehoods about child vaccinations. To that end, Popular Science recently published an extensive article that rebuts some of the anti-vaccine movement’s claims (e.g., that vaccines are made with dangerous ingredients). Personally, I’m skeptical of anti-vaccine claims — especially in light of numerous studies showing no causal link between vaccinations and autism (among other things) — so I’m thankful for a resource like Popular Science‘s article. I just really wish they had given it a different title.

Simply put, the article’s title — “How To Argue With The Anti-Vaccine Crazies: A Guide” — is a terrible example of framing and positioning, especially when compared to the rest of the article’s tone, which is largely informative and free of snark or hyperbole.

How do you argue with people who take a different stance than you, be it on childhood vaccines, politics, religion, or any other (controversial) topic? I humbly submit that you begin by not referring to them as “crazies.” I know this seems strange, but immediately labeling those who disagree with you as crazy probably does little to win them to your side. For parents, their children’s health and well-being is already a highly charged issue, so immediately leading with something suggesting that their choices stem from mental instability is hardly winsome or endearing.

Of course, if your goal is to simply belittle, ostracize, and otherwise score cultural points on them, rather than inform and persuade, then by all means, resort to calling them names. Just don’t think they’re crazy when they tune you out.

Image via ABC News

Previous Post

July 18, 2013

Rachael Slick's Deconversion and the Two Paths of Life: Dead Logic or Living Joy

Next Post

July 18, 2013 ELSEWHERE: Facebook Can Bring About Forgiveness (No, Really).

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Asides Elsewhere Featured Film Games General Culture Headline Literature Music Of the Moment Podcast Politics RetroPost Sports Technology Television Uncategorized Viral

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz