As a magazine and website publisher, all manner of articles and press releases show up in my inbox on a daily basis. Although some of them are carefully targeted to the markets I serve, most are widespread missives that are sent to every publisher with a pulse, regardless of their beat or focus.
Leading up to the historical—some would say, infamous—healthcare vote in the US house last week, I received an increased number of press releases agin the bill. Since I wasn’t interested in using any of them, I quickly scanned them while pressing delete; I do not recall any that were in favor of the bill.
Also appearing in my inbox were an increasing number of “op-ed” submissions decrying either the bill or the process. Even though I’ve never published an op-ed piece and never plan to, the submissions continued to arrive. What amazed me was that, for the most part, there was no effort to present a thoughtful discourse or elegant argument; they were filled with polarized perspectives and emotionally laden rhetoric. While I might have agreed with their general point, I was repelled by their tenor, tone, and tack.
Once the bill was passed and then signed by president Obama, I continued to receive press releases and op-ed pieces in opposition to what had happened — and fear of what might happen. A new element was added — announcements of lawsuits being filed.
It would seem that the vote approving the bill and its subsequent signing into law will not end the debate; it will merely shift to a new venue.
Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is an author, blogger, and publisher with over 30 years of writing and publishing experience. Check out his book The Successful Author for insider tips and insights.