2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I was coming home tonight and I caught the tail end of the re-broadcast of the Think Out Loud morning show just in time to hear Dave Miller comment on the follow-up phone call he had made to Stephanie Akins, a previous guest from the "Not Enough To Eat" show and I was outraged by what I heard.

Mr. Miller was responding to apparently many comments made after the show regarding the Akins' desicion to have six children even though they were not able to adequately feed them. I can understand people asking this question, it is natural to wonder about such things. But, I see the question as a rhetorical one, or at least one in which every person should answer for themselves.

The reason I was so enraged is that Dave Miller actually called the Akins' residence and spoke with Stepanie's husband. Does Mr. Miller think he is doing his journalistic duty by responding to the listeners of the show and voicing thier concerns? Or by doing so is he acting as judge and jury? By calling the Akins', Mr. Miller questioned thier morality based on concerns brought up by people who disagree with thier decision. Moral questions should always and only be answered by the parties involved. I find it very insulting that Mr. Miller thought he had the right to even ask the Akins about thier choice to have six children. Even if they knew they were not able to support them adequately, it would still not be appropriate for anyone other than the Akins to decide that.  

Even worse, when Mr. Miller relayed Mr. Akins' responce (that they were financially secure when deciding to have six children and expected to be able to provide for them) it was almost as if they were off the hook so to speak - that making the decision to bear more children was morally justified. Would it not be morally justified regardless of thier individual situation simply because they decided it so? 

I listen to the show regularly and have always respected both Mr. Miller and Emily Harris for thier insightful comments and probing questions. But, I am very dissapointed that Mr. Miller crossed the line - going from journalism and treading into morality. Who are we, as a society, to say what is right or wrong for anyone but ourselves?

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context