Politico and Atlantic.com’s turn to explain Gosnell blackout

Politico and Atlantic.com’s turn to explain Gosnell blackout April 12, 2013

Earlier I shared what happened when I asked an AP reporter and a Washington Post reporter about their personal Gosnell blackouts.

It was so illuminating that I decided to check out a few other media outlets. I headed over to Politico. Since Washington Post reporter Sarah Kliff tried to justify her lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial by calling it a local crime story, I thought I’d add other local stories into my search. Thanks for the idea! So here’s what I found out. Politico‘s search engine pops out 165 results on Trayvon Martin (local crime story in Florida), 94 stories on Komen, 233 on Sandra Fluke and 866 on Todd Akin.

Guess how many stories Politico has published on Gosnell.

Did you guess zero? You win!

I’d love to ask the reporters in question about the shocking disparity but I noticed that the reporters who wrote some of the histrionic Komen coverage aren’t even around any more. Politico is known for its turnover. So I should probably ask editors. Once I figure out who I should talk to (I’m also trying to find Kliff’s editor since she has revealed some problems with her ability to cover this issue) and will let you know how it goes.

Which brings us to my last anecdote. I follow the prolific tweeter Garance Franke-Ruta from Atlantic.com. Her twitter bio says “Senior editor, @TheAtlantic. Your early warning system. Politics, media, breaking.” I know she loved loved loved to tweet about Fluke and Akin and Komen and all that. Couldn’t get enough of it. But I hadn’t seen anything on Gosnell from her. I plugged it into the Alantic.com’s search engine and there was a story about Gosnell! I clicked on it. It wasn’t a story so much as a very brief mention in a lengthy roundup of the day’s news. Back in March.

And that was it. Atlantic.com hadn’t covered Gosnell at all. But did they cover Trayvon Martin? (247 hits) What about Komen? (97) Fluke? (131) Should I ask about Akin? (296). So I asked her about it.

Here’s what she said (before deleting it later):

Hi Mollie. I have not had a blackout on him; I picked up the story in March and expect to do so again at some point.

See if you can find her coverage of Gosnell here. It’s a brief snippet of a New York Times story on Gosnell from the start the trial. It runs 155 words. And the first sentence is wrong (newborn babies aren’t fetuses). But whatever. I think we all must agree with her point. She briefly mentioned Gosnell in a link round-up in March. What more do you people want?

I suggested that a brief mention in a link-fest wasn’t quite on the same par as the top 8 hits (out of, remember, 97) on Komen. Check out these headlines:

Top Susan G. Komen Official Resigned Over Planned Parenthood
Feb 2, 2012 … Sources with knowledge of the Koman process said recent policies were adopted specifically to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

Komen VP Karen Handel Quits Over Planned Parenthood Dispute
Feb 7, 2012 … The one-time gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who ran on a pro-life platform admitted she wanted funding cut to the network of clinics.

An Inside Look at Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s Spin Machine …
Feb 3, 2012 … Internal documents circulated by Komen officials instructing employees how to respond when confronted with questions about funding.

Who Bullied the Susan G. Komen Foundation Into Cutting Funding …
Feb 10, 2012 … Karen Handel, the recently-departed Komen VP contradicts her organization in explaining the reasoning for defunding Planned Parenthood.

Why Did Susan G. Komen Pull the Plug on Planned Parenthood …
Feb 2, 2012 … The two organizations seemed like natural allies. Why cut ties now?

How the Church and Susan Komen Place Themselves Before …
Feb 11, 2012 … Ultimately, Americans want the freedom to make personal health decisions on their own, without the various institutions around us.

The Komen Foundation’s Black Eye – Linda Hirshman – The Atlantic
Feb 1, 2012 … By no longer donating to organizations “under investigation,” the Susan G. Komen Foundation is replacing its pink ribbons with a black list.

Who Is Behind Susan G. Komen’s Split From Planned Parenthood …
Feb 1, 2012 … The mysterious decision by the leading breast-cancer charity to stop funding the country’s most prominent reproductive-health provider.

Those are just the first eight hits. So pardon me if I’m just a tad less than impressed. Since Franke-Ruta is “senior editor” there and known for covering abortion-related stories, I kept asking for an explanation that made sense.

She responded, “I don’t know why you’re acting like I assigned every Atlantic article ever written,” deleted her initial tweet and then ignored the reader deluge of questions to her about the disparate coverage.

I asked her who I should be speaking with about the editorial decisions and she has declined to answer.

It’s all very instructive. How did we get a media that is choosing to hide this story? Through many individual actions. How do they maintain the system? Lack of transparency and lack of accountability certainly help.

One last thing. The image above is the search engine for Politico. If you type in Gosnell, you’ll see two interesting things. One is that they have literally no coverage at all. The other is that it’s the most searched for news topic. Talk about serving your customers, eh? That’s some commitment to the blackout.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

76 responses to “Politico and Atlantic.com’s turn to explain Gosnell blackout”

    • It’s on their front page, it the massive headline reel that fills up half the screen.

      I think a lot of the reluctance to elevate this story stems from:

      1) The fact that any details of the case are so horrific that they create their own problems for wide-distribution broadcasts and publications


      2) The fact that so many people with strong views on abortion as a practice are chomping at the bit to twist this into something that supports their argument on such. Just to turn it into the latest front in The War The Other Side. It’s self evident, and exasperating.

      Media outlets are loathe to wade into it. The details of the case itself are stomach turning, as are the rabid efforts to conflate its meaning into the same horrible debate over abortion, writ large. (A debate that an increasingly large swath of America has lost its appetite for, regardless of stance.) I think, considering the magnitude of the crimes, that sparse coverage is probably not the right call.; I have read/seen sporadic stories since the time of the raid, though little headline coverage outside of the Philly area, where I grew up. But we are forcing so much to be bound up with this that it becomes a double liability for the media outlets in question.

      • It’s on the front page and, in addition to reporting on the facts of the case, also addresses the lack of coverage issue in pretty detailed terms. I follow Freidersdorf’s writing fairly regularly and am a happy subscriber to The Atlantic. From what I’ve seen from the magazine and from Freidersdorf I expect there will be quite a bit of followup in addition to this high-profile placement of the initial story.

        • Wow, they out up a story on it after people complain about there not being a story on it. Better late than never I suppose. Still shows a bias of them to avoid covering news that could be detrimental to the political views that they seek to reaffirm with their readers….while amply covering the stories that do reaffirm the political beliefs of their viewers.

          Sadly, news isn’t news.

      • You’re making it too complicated. News is news. This story is very newsworthy. If their job is to cover the news, instead of cover up the news, they should be all over it.

        • exactly. and what’s this BS on the gruesomeness? when has that prevented the media from coverage of a story. Daniel Pearl? Anything more gruesome than that? Don’t remember a blackout based on the MSM’s concern for us all. What a bunch of bottom feeding weasels, spinning and lying left and right to try and save their rears on this

      • From what I recall there was no such reluctance to cover details about Jeffrey Dahmer and other bad stories.

        • Seriously– it’s been years since the Dahmer case, and I still, unfortunately, have some fairly gruesome details of his killings lodged permanently in my brain, courtesy of my local newspaper.

      • Don’t u think the details of Newtown are horrific? I think that gets a lot of coverage don’t u?

      • BS! It’s the MSM hypocrites spinning like tops to avoid their precious ritual of infanticide being exposed for the barbaric horror that it is!

      • Media outlets are loathe to wade in on gruesome stories? Since when? They certainly had plenty to say about Sandy Hook (a local crime story). Plenty of details about the theater, the shooter, the victims of Aurora (a local crime story) in spite of a judge’s gag order. Minute details on the Trayvon Martin shooting (although they didn’t cover a similar incident that had occurred a few months earlier). Nor did they cover the brutal shooting of two British tourists who had gotten lost on their way back to their accommodations. The trial in that case had just started at the time of the Martin/Zimmerman incident. It was front page news in the UK particularly the outrage the parents of the two victims who felt that the US media was ignoring a horrific act of violence because of the race of the shooter while at the EXACT same time devoting endless effort to the Martin case.
        But your statement alone confirms what the author is this piece believes. It is not being covered because it might give the Pro-life people a “win”. God forbid that this horror story should be exposed. Funny thing, if this was a veterinary clinic and puppies, there would be plenty of coverage and outrage.
        God forbid that abortion clinics should have the same oversight and inspection that ANY medical clinic expects. We wouldn’t want women to have clean safe conditions if it meant the other side got a perceived “win”. We wouldn’t want to restart the debate on the inhumanity of late term abortions because it might give the “others” some ammo. You are EXACTLY the same as the NRA. So sure that if “The Others” get a foot in the door to regulate all your perceived “rights” will be eroded.

      • So, in essence, because say it’s a story like Newtown but with the wrong narrative… editors and periodicals should hesitate to run it. Your comments are revealing. People are chomping at the big for gun control. The Sandy Hook massacre was emotionally charged… but the story was okay because it served an agenda that was more acceptable to the media. Case closed. You’ve made the point for us. Thanks John.

      • Interesting. The media usually loves graphic and gory details. I suspect part of what you say is valid. But I suspect part of the ‘conspiracy’ minded statements are valid too. The fact that I looked up this story to find out more and it was much more difficult than need be. I searched and finally found a few things, but none of the graphic OJ trial. None of the detailed Clinton hearings. I don’t think the media avoids gore. They thrive on it. But I did find a story on penis size. Lady gaga and a dozen other silly things that our media deems as important news.

    • The real story, which Friedersdorf totally ignores, is how continuing restrictions on abortion force poor minority women into clinics like this where they get exploited.

  1. The “JournOList” is alive and well. There can be no other explanation for the coordinated attempt to not cover this story by so many mainstream media outlets. It is very much a live, ticking time bomb for the pro-abortion crowd and they know it because it has the potential to blow up their entire 40-year-old narrative about it. Nevertheless, I do believe that the truth will out in spite of their attempts to hide it, with all the unintended consequences — for them — it will entail.

    • Not to mention Planned Parenthood is down in Florida trying to make this very thing legal! Well their not saying it like that. What thet’re saying is if you have a live baby laying on the table it is up to the doctor and of course mother who’s not awake to decide what to do with the baby and the doctor should not have to treat the baby as a living breathing human being and take care of it!!!! So no they don’t want to talk about this now,

  2. Yahoo had coverage. Their ap reporter buried it under financial…as one commenter asked how is murderer “financial”. But it did rise to the top because of the number of hits.

    • It’s financial because that excuse for a man was making a lot of money committing murder. 🙁

  3. Gotta love a media outlet that publishes one thing on this case to lament it ought to be on the front page, and doesn’t even put it on the front page, except for the link noting it’s their most popular item.

    Keep going, Mollie. Write the book. Do a feature. This has legs, go for it!

    …for what it’s worth, I did a quick round-up of several news outlets and their coverage on my own blog. http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2013/04/gosnell-abortion-murder-trial-links-to.html
    Amazing how many articles are complaining about the lack of coverage – like Breitbart and Fox – without actually covering the story itself.

  4. Keep it up, Mollie. The outrage is starting to penetrate. Why the story should be covered is explicated in this piece from a pro-choice point-of-view:

    The moral to be drawn from the Gosnell trial is not that current abortion laws are screwed up. Indeed, Gosnell broke them, which is why he’s on trial. Rather, it’s that as individual states increasingly restrict abortion rights, more and more illegal clinics, like Gosnell’s may crop up.


    • Interesting. The fact is, though, that Gosnell is on trial mostly for murder, which is not an abortion law. If the conditions of his facilities are a violation of anything, it isn’t abortion laws per se. And the premise that Gosnell is a result of restrictive abortion laws in a state whose laws are not all that restrictive needs some support.

      Also not getting coverage is a case involving Planned Parenthood in Delaware, where patient safety and sanitary conditions are largely unregulated. Or if regulated unenforced. Is this the result of restrictions — or laxity? http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/10/another-abortion-clinic-horror-story-planned-parenthood-of-delaware/

      Break it open, Mollie. It’s a national problem, not just a local crime story.

      • The issue of poorly regulated abortion facilities was covered and covered well at Slate. But it’s disingenuous to say that the Gosnell case is not about abortion law. Clearly one side believes that publicizing this case may sway public opinion towards re-criminalizing abortion, while the other side refuses to publicize it for exactly the same reason. Gosnell’s on trial for murder, but the government is indirectly on trial for collusion -and- it’s altogether possible that violent acts committed against abortion facilities and providers helped create the situation.

        What I as a reader (and non-journalist) would like to see is uptotheminute coverage of the *facts* of the case, something that isn’t being done by any media outlet. Impartial coverage would allow me (and people like me) to assess the situation and draw our own conclusions. Pro-life media is every bit as biased as the mainstream (yes, guys, I read what’s out there, especially the links provided by certain pro-life commentators at GR). Surely there must be something in the middle, a news agency that can provide unadorned facts–in this case so horrible that they speak pretty well for themselves.

        • Sorry, Sari, that kind of “neutral” or unbiased coverage does not exist any more….you can blame it on whatever you wish, but it is not there. So, you may need to gather your “religion (make that “abortion”)” news from GR, where at least it is well stated and straight-forward. Blaming this murderous streak we are on to the pro-life crowd is simply short-sighted. And you’ve been contributing to these pages long enough to really understand that.

          • I gather my news where I can find it, James, but I find much of what is posted here is straightforwardly biased. People are people. But whether unbiased coverage does or doesn’t exist, it *should* exist if the public is to make informed decisions.

            As to blame, there’s plenty to go around. Anyone who’s lived as a targeted minority understands that the sharks will circle at the slightest infraction. Think of it as an ecosystem, where changing one variable leads to a host of other changes, some of which can be anticipated and others not. Systems are dynamic, not static; the sequence of events which allowed Gosnell to operate unsupervised did not occur in a vacuum and goes way past governors’ personal positions on abortion. Slate was able to report on and analyze a similar situation in a reasoned manner, so someone should be able to do the same with this story.

        • An admirable goal. I hope you are able to find this particular news source eventually. For your future reference…

          The most “just the facts and only the facts” place that I go to is
          deals with court cases and government issues that deal with religion. It’s not an actual news site. Just puts up information relating to court cases dealing with religion. He might start blogging about the Gosnell court trial eventually considering the religious implications that go along with abortion, but I’m thinking no by now… He’s VERY on top of major court cases, and if he hasn’t blogged about it yet, I don’t believe he’s going to any time soon.

          romereports.com is the only other site that I can think of that is very “just the facts”. Deals with everything dealing with the Vatican and it is also from a Catholic point of view… So a very narrow scope… You might not see it the way that I do, but I believe it is a very reliable news source.

          Just two more places that you might be able to look in the future for information. Take care.

    • Jerry, the whole point is that Gosnell’s clinic wasn’t illegal. It was licensed by the state authorities and got hospital referrals. It’s not like he was pretending to be a health clinic and performing abortions on the side – he was set up as an abortion provider.

      So that line about “more illegal clinics, like Gosnell’s” is disingenuous at best and trying to spin the story at worst into the same old “if you don’t let abortion law alone, back-alley abortion will be back!”

      Well, damn it, for the women involved a back-alley abortionist wouldn’t have been more of a risk than the legal clinic.

    • Gosnell’s clinic was legal. To claim otherwise is just to lie. Gosnell existed with the support of the law, he was not operating outside the law. I wish people would stop lieing.

  5. Just saw you on Megyn Kelly’s show. Great presentation. Way to go! Hope you get asked to other news programs.

  6. For kicks and giggles, I just checked NPR. Nothing on it in the last week and the only coverage of the trial has been from AP — no original reporting at all. The only thing they’ve covered themselves is one story talking about regulations covering clinics in PA: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175459510/pennsylvania-tightens-abortion-rules-following-clinic-deaths and another story about the same topic in VA. That’s it.

    For Sandra Fluke, around 40 entries. For Todd Akin and rape, 95 entries. 392 entries for Trayvon Martin.

    No folks, there’s nothing to see here. Moving right along….

  7. The WashTimes has several stories about the coverage. The most comprehensive report that I found was dated March 18 and headlined, “Defense: Philadelphia abortion doctor’s case is ‘a lynching’.”

    Sari, I believe that abortion is infanticide, but I don’t think good laws come out of bad events. I detest the interpretations that news services frequently include with their news on any subject. (Except maybe kittens and puppies.)

  8. Go read some of the latest commentary. The official party line is that this story WAS covered–even by liberals and feminist writers–2 years ago, when the grand jury report was released. No explanation of why the trial isn’t being covered NOW, of course.

    The non-coverage of this story ranks right up there with the non-coverage of the John Edwards story. It does appear, though, that some “news” outlets are being shamed/embarrassed into writing about it.

  9. I may get automatically dinged for posting too often, but just after I posted that I saw this mea culpa. And I have a side note – I’m praying that this issue wakes up the press. It’s doing that for a few and just maybe more will wake up.

    Why I Didn’t Write About Gosnell’s Trial–And Why I Should Have
    by Megan McArdle Apr 12, 2013 12:33 PM EDT
    Gosnell is accused of grisly crimes that I didn’t want to think about.

    But Hemingway (who I also know and like), does have a point: the MSM has barely covered a story that could plausibly be named “The Trial of the Century”. And that demands explanation. So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.

    To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.

    But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective–of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories–if the sick-making was done by “our side”.

    Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.

    What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion. But while legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open.

    Moreover, as Jeffrey Goldberg points out, this has disturbing implications for late-term abortions…

    George Tiller’s murder was also a local crime. There was no “national policy issue” involved: murder is a matter for state law. And there was no real question that if Tiller’s murderer was caught, he was going to be tried and convicted for the killing. Nonetheless, lots of national journalists–including Sarah Kliff, for Newsweek–covered the killing and discussed what it meant for abortion provision nationwide.

    If I think about it for a moment, there are obviously lots of policy implications of Gosnell’s baby charnel house. How the hell did this clinic operate for seventeen years without health inspectors discovering his brutal crimes? Are there major holes in our medical regulatory system? More to the point, are those holes created, in part, by the pressure to go easy on abortion clinics, or more charitably, the fear of getting tangled in a hot-button political issue? These have clear implications for abortion access, and abortion politics.

    Also note the empty rows of seats reserved for the media in that report.


  10. Mollie~ I applaud your efforts on this and continuing to ask the questions that are only now beginning to be answered. It is both instructive and appalling to see this story brushed aside by most of the mainstream media news outlets.

  11. If it was about a popular personality with a dress malfunction it’d be a banner headline. If about change of host on a morning network program, it would stop the presses. Infanticide doesn’t have an audience or a bustline. A “baby bump” on a princess rates a headline, a headless baby not so.

  12. Mollie, it looks to me like you’ve stirred up a bit of consternation here. Not 1/100th the consternation this catastrophe deserves, if you ask me, but consternation nonetheless, and I’m grateful.

    As far as I’m concerned, some people need to lose their jobs over this, but given how bad the situation is, those people mostly have titles like “Editor-in-Chief”, so the odds of that are zero. Instead we’ll probably get hand-wringing columns from ombudspersons talking down to those of us they imagine to live out here if fly-over country about our petty little concerns about infanticide.

    Bleah. But well-done, Mollie. It’s not easy to shame the shameless, and you have done that here, at least to some extent.


  13. Well, Mollie, you seem to have gone viral, as they say. And good for you.

    I think others have pointed out the unreported women’s health issues here. How many other Gosnells are out there? Here is one report of one clinic where several women ended up in the hospital over the course of one month. It happens to have another angle, that being the assault on the woman filming it. It’s interesting, but futile to speculate on the media coverage had the assault occurred on a pro-choice person.


    I termer the

  14. Blasted phone!

    I meant to say that I remember that abortion was sold as a safer alternative to “back alley butchers”. Common sense tells you that when abortion was illegal, physicians and midwives willing to do the procedure would be more careful than operators of modern abortion factories.

    But journalism…

    A quick google search returned up several other cases of women dead from botched abortions, but no hard numbers. I did find a couple of resources, however, that any inquisitive reporter could find in a minute:



    That’s if you want to know

  15. I suspect coverage of the coverage will come off as agenda ridden unless it makes clear language distinctions between 1st term (early) and late 2nd term abortions. The meta-issue for GetReligion analysis appears to be whether modern reporters and editors have the skills necessary to cover slippery-slope issues. The rash of articles I’ve seen today suggests most coverage is still fitting the coverage story into a progressive/regressive meme.

    At its worst, coverage of the coverage, is stepping into logically awful ex-post facto rationalization. For example, I have a hard time imaging that Kevin Drum, whom I was just starting to like, won’t wish for a redo button on his piece. Right now it seems like human propensity toward a dominant heuristic is causing reporters to get really sloppy in framing. Those who have only practiced single sided abortion framing seem to be having a really hard time letting murder, race, incompetence and spotty enforcement compete with their well worn memes and talking points. I wonder how many other reporters, now pressed into quick coverage, will be unable to escape the trap of bad rationalization brought on by a long history on one-sided thought??

  16. Dear Molly Hemingway – this is my first time to this site and was glad to see you have been following the Gosnell story all along. One interesting thing is that liberals and liberal news outlets have not even realized that they should be outraged, sickened, and horrified by this story. It is women, women’s health, the failure of oversight of health facilities, the abuse, the malpractice, and deaths resulting from botched abortions, that should be of utmost concern. Not to mention the horrors of late term abortions. AND that poor women of color (one of whom did not speak English, and died eventually as the result of her abortion) are singled out for the worst treatment. And that is without even getting to the question of killing live, newborn infants.

  17. There is some sort of coordination going on. It is not just chance that the vast majority of news outlets simply ignored a story of mass homicide of infants. Something very evil is happening.

  18. Interesting that gun rights or laws or the lack thereof are responsible for the deaths of those poor children and teachers in CT, but abortion rights or laws or lack thereof have nothing to do with these atrocities?

  19. Mollie, thank you for all your hard work on this. I linked back to your articles in my blog post about this (and added Get Religion to my permanent Blog Roll).
    I’ve also been sharing these articles on Facebook. At least one of my liberal European friends, who was actively posting support for the gun control move, had never heard the story until she read my FB posts. She said she was “in shock” after following my links. 🙁

  20. Excuse me, but what makes the Arias trial of prime national and international interest – what policy issues make her trial other than a local news story? The murder trial of this doctor is happening because of the abortion laws, especially the mess about late term abortions. Perhaps one can argue for early abortions, but there is no way to explain late term abortions other than murder. Seems to me that this is a policy issue of national importance, like the gun issue.

    • My first answer is a desire to portray Mormons in a bad light. Beyond that I still have no reason why there is any newsworthiness to the Arias trial outside of Arizona.

  21. I have to give belated credit to the Atlantic there recent piece on was gut wrenchingly honest and included a picture of a fully formed baby girl that Gosnell killed. It was incrediably rough to see and read about but necessary to give the reader the true slaughter that was going on at that hell hole. I give the Atlantic a lot of credit – it took them too long – but the article was honest. Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story

  22. The issue is avoided because of the emotions that it illicits. The main stream media is more than willing to to play the emotion card when it suits their agenda.

  23. There may be another angle. In 2008, the MSM buried the reports that Obama voted four times against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He was very vocal about it. He had no problem with these types of late term procedures. Further, he saw no reason to save an infant who might survive. An inquisitive reporter may question the connection. Google: Jill Stanek. She has been out front on this from the beginning.

  24. Keep shining the light. Any rational person who reads will align what happened in the slaughter houses in Philadelphia and Newtown. The differences are the scale of slaughter in Philadelphia is grossly larger, lasts years not minutes, the victims were six years younger, could not run away, the nation and state abjectly failed its basic duty, to protect life, and the press literally did not report one horror.
    You can not put toothpaste back in the tube; America’s media is either incompetent, or fundamentally untruthful. There are people in the city, or state governments who must be fired. There are editors in the national media who must be fired. And voters must look at those photos before they decide. America does not need another law forbidding large gun magazines; it needs to examine its basic values. You can not kill babies and mothers, to make a buck.

  25. Covering this story brings the thin veneer of liberalism up against a chain saw. Reading Megan McCardle, for example, and she tries to explain her way out of why she is pro abortion, just not pro this kind of abortion, without answering the questions coverage of this case brings up…such as why is it ok for pro abortionists to get to choose when life begins and when abortion should be made illegal…and not for pro-lifes?

    Also…one does not have to be at all, or even a little religious, to be against abortion, any more than one has to be religious to believe in laws against murder, rape, or other assault.

  26. I am NOT interested in the trial of an accused murder whose activities occurred, if they did occur, 3000 miles and 3 years away. What has that got to do with anything that matters, either to me orr to a national audience? NOTHING.

    For perspective, would it be national front page news if I found someone performing abortions in my modest town, who was doing so in complete compliance with all applicable law, and who had never been accused of any crime? I don’t think so. So finding an apparent bad apple in the barrel really does not say anything interesting about the barrel, unless it’s news to someone that there are lawbreakers and that some are put on trial for it.

    • Right, who ever cared about serial murderers! No one, that’s who!
      Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy

  27. The media got busted on this one. Then, instead of playing it smart and ignoring the criticism, it responds with disingenuous excuses that only dig the hole deeper for it. Incredible

  28. I have been posting about the Gosnell blackout which pro-abortionists claim is a myth on a political website on Long Island. I find it morbidly laughable for pro-abortionists to claim that either 1. Gosnell is a local crime story not worthy of national media coverage or 2. there really has not been a blackout.

  29. I’ll speak up for the media here. It’s clear from comments on this and other sites that infanticide denial has a market. But that’s true for holocaust denial as well.

Close Ad