I\u2019ve been writing about media coverage of abortion for many years. And so have many others. If you haven\u2019t read David Shaw\u2019s \u201cAbortion Bias Seeps Into The News<\/a>,\u201d published in the Los Angeles Times<\/em> back in 1990, you should. That report also explains why we cover the topic here at GetReligion.<\/p>\n But the thing is that I\u2019m getting kind of sick of pointing out egregious bias only to see things not just remain bad but get worse. Just think, in the last year, we saw the media drop any pretense of objectivity and bully the Susan G. Komen Foundation into funding Planned Parenthood. And then we had how many months of coverage focused on someone calling a birth control activist a bad name? And who can forget every pro-life person in the country being asked to respond to Todd Akin\u2019s stupid remarks about rape?<\/p>\n So our abortion-drenched media would certainly want to cover what is arguably the country\u2019s most horrific serial murder trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, right? Well, far from the front-page, top of the news, daily update coverage you rightfully would expect, it\u2019s been downplayed. Majorly downplayed. <\/p>\n Inspired by Kirsten Powers\u2019 USA Today<\/em> column yesterday, I decided to start asking journalists about their personal involvement in the Gosnell cover-up.<\/p>\n I began by asking the AP\u2019s national social issues reporter why he hadn\u2019t been tweeting to AP coverage of the Gosnell trial. I had to ask a few times and then \u2026 there it was \u2026 finally \u2026. a tweet on the Gosnell trial. Then he told me that the AP was covering the trial (which I knew, as I\u2019ve critiqued it here). I reminded him that I was wondering why he<\/em> hadn\u2019t been tweeting to coverage of Gosnell. I asked him to correct me if I was wrong about his lack of tweets. He didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Then I decided, since tmatt has me reading the Washington Post<\/em> every day, to look at how the paper\u2019s health policy reporter was covering Gosnell. I have critiqued many of her stories on the Susan G. Komen Foundation (she wrote quite a bit about that) and the Sandra Fluke controversy (she wrote quite a bit about that) and the Todd Akin controversy (you know where this is going). In fact, a site search for that reporter \u2014 who is named Sarah Kliff \u2014 and stories Akin and Fluke and Komen \u2014 yields more than 80 hits. Guess how many stories she\u2019s done on this abortionist\u2019s mass murder trial.<\/p>\n Did you guess zero? You\u2019d be right.<\/p>\n So I asked her about it. Here\u2019s her response<\/a>:<\/p>\n Hi Molly \u2013 I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes. She really, really, really said that. As Robert VerBruggen<\/a> dryly responded:<\/p>\n Makes sense. Similarly, national gun-policy people do not cover local crime in places like Aurora or Newtown.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So when a private foundation privately decides to stop giving money to the country\u2019s largest abortion provider, that is somehow a policy issue deserving of three dozen breathless hits. When a yahoo political candidate says something stupid about rape, that is a policy issue of such import that we got another three dozen hits about it from this reporter. It was so important that journalists found it fitting to ask every pro-lifer in their path to discuss it. And when someone says something mean to a birth control activist, that\u2019s good for months of puffy profiles.<\/p>\n But gosh darn it, can you think of any policy implications to this, uh, \u201clocal crime\u201d story? And that\u2019s all it is. Just like a bunch of other local stories the Washington Post<\/em> also refuses to cover \u2014 local crimes such as the killing of Trayvon Martin and the killing of Matthew Shepard and the killing of students at an elementary school in Connecticut. Did the Washington Post<\/em> even think of covering those local crime stories? No! Oh wait, they did? Like, all the time? Hmm. That\u2019s weird. But did they cover them in terms of policy implications? Asking politicians for their views and such? Oh they did that, too? Hmm. So weird. Oh, and Sarah Kliff herself<\/a> wrote one of those stories? Well, gosh, I\u2019m so confused.<\/p>\n And what policies could possibly be under discussion with this Gosnell trial? Other than, you know, abortion clinic hiring practices? And enforcement of sanitary conditions? And laws on abortion practices that extend to killing live infants by beheading them? And the killing of their mothers? And state or federal oversight of clinics with records of botched abortions? And pain medication practices? And how to handle the racist practices of some clinics? And how big of a problem this is (don\u2019t tell anyone but another clinic nearby to Gosnell was shut down this week over similar sanitation concerns)? And disposal of babies\u2019 bodies? And discussion of whether it\u2019s cool to snip baby\u2019s spines after they\u2019re born? And how often are abortion clinics inspected anyway? What are the results of inspections? When emergency rooms take in victims of botched abortions, do they report that? How did this clinic go 17 years without an inspection<\/a>? Gosh, I just can\u2019t think of a single health policy angle here. Can you? <\/p>\n I mean, God forbid we go big and actually discuss abortion policy in general \u2014 something Kliff is usually quite keen to do. (Here\u2019s her 2010 piece for Newsweek<\/em> headlined Remember Roe!<\/a>)<\/p>\n Kliff is hearing from her readers now \u2014 mostly I know about this since literally hundreds of them are copying me on their responses. To put it quite mildly, they find her justification attempt stunning, disingenuous, callous, laughable and far, far worse. The most charitable response was this one from Billy Valentine<\/a>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n so who at @washingtonpost SHOULD be covering Gosnell if not you?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n She hasn\u2019t responded. It seemed obvious to me that the reporter at the Washington Post<\/em> who writes so prolifically and passionately about abortion rights would cover this story. She says, however unconvincingly, that a major abortion story suddenly isn\u2019t her beat. OK. Fine. So who at the Washington Post<\/em> should be covering this major story with national implications? Let me know and I\u2019ll ask them about it.<\/p>\n