Gosnell fog blankets Britain

Last week my colleague at GetReligion Mollie Hemingway broke the American media blockade surrounding the Kermit Gosnell trial. Mollie, and Kirsten Powers writing in USA Today, reported on the absence of national press coverage of the trial of the Philadelphia abortionist — questioning why reporters who never tired of Sandra Flake or Komen Foundation stories shied away from this national news item.

Some members of the press and newspapers have sought to repair their damaged credibility and are now playing catch up, while others have retreated into the bunker (Nixonian allusions spring to mind but would likely be lost on the miscreants).

However, the British press appears not to have received the memo. As of the date of this post, the BBC has yet to air a story on the Gosnell affair (though it did run one web piece on 15 April after the Hemingway storm broke and the American media mea culpa.) ITV and Channel 4 have yet to report.

The newspapers have not raised the average. The Times ran one story on 13 April, but the Guardian and Independent have remained silent. The Telegraph does a little better — it had one news article dated 12 April entitled “Kermit Gosnell: US abortion doctor could be put to death over ‘baby charnel house’”. Op-Ed writers Damian Thompson and Tim Stanley weighed in on the Gosnell story as well as the media blackout. On 12 April Thompson wrote:

But British readers must know about the case of Dr Kermit Gosnell, which has been played down in the American media – possibly because the allegations of a homicidal abortion doctor don’t fit into their pro-choice narrative.

Well, Philadelphia is very far away after all. And a story about an abortionist on trial for infanticide in Philadelphia may not be interesting to the British newspaper reading public. American newspapers are notorious for their lack of in-depth overseas reporting due to the perception that  its readers don’t care about the outside world.

Perhaps the Daily Mail is an outlier — it has published 26 stories since 2011 on the Kermit Gosnell case — a number greater than all the news stories of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, NBS, and CNN combined. It must be due to the large number of transplanted Philadelphians residing in Surrey.

The popular British blog Archbishop Cranmer explains the reticence stating:

This low-key response is almost certainly because Dr Gosnell’s case takes us to the question of what it means to be human and humane, and this is why it is so important. What he was doing crossed a fundamental line in law and morality between abortion and infanticide. Abortion prioritises the health of the mother. Dr Gosnell is accused of killing babies after the child was outside of the mother, at a time when the risks of childbirth were passed, though they were now entering the risk-laden world of Dr Gosnell’s post-operative care.

He sees a political explanation in all this. The same news outlets who pushed Barack Obama into the Oval Office are protecting their investment.

There is a political reason behind the silence amongst a media that subjected President Obama to as little scrutiny as Dr Gosnell. There have been efforts to legislate for doctors to be required to provide full medical treatment to babies who survive abortion procedures. Three times the President has voted against it, imperiously ignoring the possibility that men like Dr Gosnell exist. The US Federal Government provides 45% of the $1billion budget of Planned Parenthood, the US major abortion provider.

They, like the President, are very equivocal about this issue of infanticide as this video demonstrates. The lady struggling to answer the clear and direct questions is Alisa Lapolt Snow, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood giving evidence to a committee of Florida legislators. Dr Gosnell’s trial puts the inconvenient truth of abortion and infanticide plainly into the public domain. It puts the brutal bloody facts to the sanitised language and could prove to be the tipping point in the public debate as ordinary people see for the first time how far the pro-abortion lobby are prepared to go in defending their industry.

There is a reason we talk about the ‘slippery slope’.

Why are so few people in the media, American or British, asking these questions?

About geoconger
  • Pingback: Gosnell fog blankets Britain: Get Religion, April 19, 2013 | Conger

  • Chris M

    The Guardian has put up a co-ed piece on the Gosnell case in the past hour. Unsurprisingly, they’ve blamed it entirely on the pro-life community.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/19/gosnell-abortion-trial-pro-life-activists-to-blame

  • http://www.authenticbioethics.blogspot.com AuthenticBioethics

    I don’t know if this answers your question, but I have long believed that there is no inadvertent fall down a “slippery slope” but rather an intentional push along clear, well-defined route to a desired goal. “Slippery slope” is just a point of view, a perspective, describing the effect of concerted efforts and propaganda a largely unaware society. But it seems to me that those efforts come from those who know where they are going and are crafty in terms of getting the whole of society to go there.

  • cvg

    After testimony and pictures like this, it really does beg the question why this isn’t being covered. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gosnell-trial-witness-baby-abortion-survivor-was-swimming-toilet-trying-get-out

    If a swimming baby being killed doesn’t deserve attention, I’m at a loss of words for what does.

  • Paul

    The response from the Guardian, Britain’s answer to America’s NY Times isn’t surprising. Ideology often gets in the way of the truth. They could spin their way into justifying anything. The problem is that the Higher Truth can not be spun. It simply is. And the worst thing one can do in the universe is to take innocent life. Those who make it more likely that this will happen through their words and actions are complicit in the act and may have to answer for this in the future, perhaps to those whose rights were so callously disregarded. One can hope, anyway. How do you respond to the following question put forth by one who was aborted: Why didn’t you try to protect me? I’d be curious what the response would be.

    • Paul

      By future, I meant in the hereafter, which may have been obvious, in which case this sentence is unnecessary.

  • Pingback: Does journalism matter?: Get Religion, April 29, 2013 | Conger

  • Pingback: Does journalism matter?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X