Has the media forgotten what belongs on Page One?

[DinoDoc]

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, "described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body." One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his "snipping" technique to use on infants born alive.

Massof, who, like other witnesses, has himself pleaded guilty to serious crimes, testified "It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place." Here is the headline the Associated Press put on a story about his testimony that he saw 100 babies born and then snipped: "Staffer describes chaos at PA abortion clinic."

"Chaos" isn't really the story here. Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state's 24-week limit for abortions is the story. There is a reason the late Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this procedure infanticide.

Planned Parenthood recently claimed that the possibility of infants surviving late-term abortions was "highly unusual." The Gosnell case suggests otherwise.

Regardless of such quibbles, about whether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb — as in a routine late-term abortion — is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, "A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn't make the cut.

You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It's about basic human rights.

The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.

Kirsten Powers is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, a Fox News political analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast.

It seems to have all the ingredients a cynical editor loves: Blood and Controversy. We can even throw in stories about the obvious malfeasance on the part of government and the organizations (National Abortion Federation) who's existence is supposed to be centered on preventing this sort of thing. There's also the question of this being an outlier or not. So why has the case struggled to get media attention?

 

[Gucumatz]

Well there are all sorts of news stories that don't seem to crack the front pages anymore (For example the trial of Rios Montt is going on for Genocide and is the first ever trial against Genocide being held in a country's own national Tribunal, of course we can't see former members of the Reagan administration tried for warcrimes, but I digress)

That said - Its funny hearing Fox complain about Media Bias when its normally one of its worst propagators. Even still, this is a case that should get more attention. Oddly enough Fox News may be right for once, this case isn't getting enough coverage

 

[DinoDoc]

That said - Its funny hearing Fox complain about Media Bias when its normally one of its worst propagators. Even still, this is a case that should get more attention. Oddly enough Fox News may be right for once, this case isn't getting enough coverage

If it makes you feel better, here's something from a liberal site: Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial--And Why I Should Have

 

[warpus]

There are definitely many subjects the media don't put enough emphasis on. There is no need to bring politics into it though - a push for better journalism should be coming without political affiliations attached.

 

[Gucumatz]

The picture of the press section in the court-room is particularly telling. This case is going to have profound impacts one way or the other, it deserves to be covered regardless of what happens in the end

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Wait, were late-term abortions legalized across the US?

 

[ace99]

Kirsten Powers is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, a Fox News political analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast.

'

Hah.

 

[Gucumatz]

Exactly, I chuckled a bit too Ace seeing those credentials. Still, doesn't change the fact that this case could have larger effects on the nation and has been largely ignored so far

 

[DinoDoc]

'

Hah.

Can I take this to mean that you disagree with her point that this case represents a failure of the media and this case doesn't deserve wider coverage? If so, why do you feel this way?

 

[Azale]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/

Have you forgotten what was being covered in 2011? I mean, I wouldn't blame you if you did.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If it makes you feel better, here's something from a liberal site: Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial--And Why I Should Have

The Daily Beast is now a "liberal site"?

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

Despite the Wall Street Journal now being owned by that noted "liberal", Rupert Murdoch.

Gosnell is apparently a hack who should have never had a medical license. He clearly deserves to be tried for his apparent crimes. But it is hardly an indictment of abortions in general, as the authoritarian far-right is again trying to make it out to be. It is a rare exception instead of any sort of rule. That is what they are really upset about. That this case isn't causing widespread fear mongering and paranoia to achieve their same old tired agenda.

 

[DinoDoc]

Have you forgotten what was being covered in 2011? I mean, I wouldn't blame you if you did.

Liberals covered Gosnell (golf clap) when the story broke. A gag order effectively snuffed out media coverage of the case for two years. But when the trial began, it didn't break into the MSM the way all manner of random murder or fraud trials have. - Gosnell, Continued

 

[DinoDoc]

The Daily Beast is now a "liberal site"?

More right wing rags:
Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story

Why Is the Press Ignoring the Kermit Gosnell Story?: "It’s too late now, though, to suppress coverage. [Kirsten] Powers and others have shamed the media into paying attention, and the press is now on the case. It’s remarkable that it took this long."

Washington Post pledges Gosnell coverage: We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.

But it is hardly an indictment of abortions in general, as the authoritarian far-right is again trying to make it out to be.

I haven't even tried to make this thread an indictment of anything other poor media coverage and even went to the trouble of listing the reasons why I felt it should be getting more coverage. It certainly deserves the spotlight more than the Arias case.

It is a rare exception instead of any sort of rule.

Is it? Given the numerous failures in this case by State and Abortion groups, can you truly state definitively that he's a singular example since another clinic was shut down this week due to conditions remarkably similar to Gosnell's clinic.

 

[ace99]

Why Is the Press Ignoring the Kermit Gosnell Story?

Because the press is spending all its time asking why the press is ignoring the story rather than reporting on the story.

Oh and because they're spending all their time reporting on this travesty:

Harris-Perry became the target of relentless conservative attacks for the ad, in which she said society needed to think in a collective manner about its children and that "we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities." On his MSNBC show, Chris Hayes estimated that the 30-second promo had, when you added it up, been covered for over an hour on Fox News during the week—even though it was aired for just a total of four minutes on MSNBC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...olitics&ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Go figure.

 

[DinoDoc]

Oh and because they're spending all their time reporting on this travesty:

I'm confused at the point your trying to get at and what it has to do with the post you quote.

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm confused at the point your trying to get at and what it has to do with the post you quote.

well it was one hour of prime time, not spent covering your op story, just because someone used the words "collective responsibilty"...

 

[ace99]

I'm confused at the point your trying to get at and what it has to do with the post you quote.

I'm explaining to you why the press isn't covering your fetish.

 

[classical_hero]

The Shandy Hook shootings was front and centre in every media outlet and yet this trial has received very little coverage.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I'm inclined to agree that the media's notion of what is news-worthy is somehow skewed.

But isn't it just a feature of what the media moguls think their audience will be interested in?

The purpose of the media is not to inform, but to attract the largest number of customers, it seems to me.

 

[AlpsStranger]

They're all obviously agenda driven to the point of silliness anymore. I don't think anyone can seriously deny it.

Whether they're simply trying to appeal to their audience's attitudes or mold their audience's attitudes is a more interesting question.