lobolance

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5974381

The SJ Merc reports that a whopping 89% of parents support comprehensive sex ed, across political/religious boundaries. It also talks about how scientific studies report how much more effective comprehensive education is compared to federally-mandated abstinence/sex-in-marriage education.

I am struck by how, nonetheless, the article spends at least three paragraphs (at least they're far down in the article) reporting on uber-religion-conservative views, in little interviews. I grok showing both sides of a story. I also note that the calm reporting of science isn't nearly as exciting a read as a little frothing at the mouth. Yet frothing at the mouth on the science side would look really silly (of course, it also looks silly on the religious side).

Anyhow, I wonder if these little interviews don't sorta fan the flames of fervor, just by paying paragraphs of attention to them. That might be in service of getting people to read the paper, but not to the news itself. Interesting to consider.