2 ms·
>That's not daring to present a viewpoint at which the show's white bread audience might bristle? Did you bristle at it? >What about the show that was generou
by ebfe 11y ago
>That's not daring to present a viewpoint at which the show's white bread audience might bristle?
Did you bristle at it?
>What about the show that was generously interpreted as positing that perhaps certain individuals were on disability insurance because they had been left behind by the economy and this isn't a judgment of them but rather of our lack of any other option for those individuals? I guess that wasn't a challenging issue for the listeners, either.
Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy?
- jasonmp85 11y ago> Did you bristle at it? Point taken. > Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy? No, but I did generally assume they had something so debilitating they were incapable of working. The show basically pointed out that some doctors in areas of high unemployment were signing off on disabilities for people who basically just had outdated skill sets. My impression was that in lieu of any real progressive safety net (basic income, etc.) citizens have started leaning heavily on disability insurance. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do some Googling to see the other side of the argument about that episode. Also, why is this being discussed at all? This (and shows like it) are basically Chicken Soup for the Soul in podcast form. They're emotional filler but I've fallen for discussing them like they should be some sort of hard-hitting journalism or policy discussions. In a discussion of media responsibility, does Ira really deserve to be the first head on the chopping block?