OK, maybe, and I’m not criticising her caring for her children. I’m questioning her need to, and the benefit of her decision to, broadcast it. I’d still be more inclined to listen to someone who asserted that those lyrics were unsuitable for children in general, without the potential conflict that results from their personal situation and beliefs. We call out people for being conflicted in many areas, and correctly view their self-interested proclamations with scepticism. I don’t see why we should change this for issues such as this.
Another example. There is a scene in Naomi Klein’s movie where they interview a couple of artisanal goat farmers whose property is affected by a neighbouring Powder River Basin coal mine. Mining and burning coal from the Powder River Basin certainly has massive environmental issues that affect the whole planet. I’m not sure giving disproportionate weight to the goat-farming neighbours advances the debate significantly.
See also shopkeepers who oppose bike lanes past their business because they will lose customers (“where will they park?”). 1) The customers will still shop. Other shopkeepers will presumably benefit, resulting in no net loss of people buying shit. 2) The bike lanes often don’t have that effect anyway. 3) There are larger issues at stake concerning the liveability of our cities. Shopkeepers on the bike route are perhaps the people least likely to usefully inform the decision.