This is not wrong, but it’s a broken model of how information and policy is propagated and debated. One immediate concern is that you use the word “we” when discussing groups that don’t contain me (nor you, I suspect).
a tragedy catches our attention, we point to statistics to show it’s an example of a distressingly common problem, and we propose laws to address the issue.
Not true. The tragedy catches some people’s attention, and they pick statistics that will gain them further attention and funding. That amplification catches more people’s attention, but on slightly different topics than are justified. Still other people have ideas about what laws they’d like to see, and use this attention to justify their ideas and prevent rational discussion of it.
There is no “we” on such topics. Bootleggers and Baptists only.
This is not wrong, but it’s a broken model of how information and policy is propagated and debated. One immediate concern is that you use the word “we” when discussing groups that don’t contain me (nor you, I suspect).
Not true. The tragedy catches some people’s attention, and they pick statistics that will gain them further attention and funding. That amplification catches more people’s attention, but on slightly different topics than are justified. Still other people have ideas about what laws they’d like to see, and use this attention to justify their ideas and prevent rational discussion of it.
There is no “we” on such topics. Bootleggers and Baptists only.