Has the media forgotten what belongs on Page One?

I think I've seen more articles asking why people weren't covering the story than articles on the actual story.

I agree. I think some editors dropped the ball here, that's about as compelling of a crime story as you're going to get, although I feel bad for whatever lowly intern has to moderate the comments under the articles.
 
Alright, what about the implications of this case for the nation? Is it going to lead to a change in abortion legislation? Is it going to trigger anti-abortion riots across the US? Trying to figure out if this story does belong on page 1.

Probably no implications as apparently this was one bad doctor breaking the law and not some national epidemic of illegal abortions. Anti-abortionists don't need an excuse to protest, they do it all the time because they are against any and all abortions. I can't see them rioting though.

Page 1? Probably not simply because I don't feel that too many individual crimes deserve front page coverage outside of the localities they happen in if they don't have national implications. That's just my take though.
 
I agree. I think some editors dropped the ball here, that's about as compelling of a crime story as you're going to get, although I feel bad for whatever lowly intern has to moderate the comments under the articles.
I'll save my sympathy for whoever they make read the entire Grand Jury report on the case.
 
Probably no implications ...
States are moving to pass new abortion clinic regulations because of Kermit Gosnell's case.
Page 1? Probably not simply because I don't feel that too many individual crimes deserve front page coverage outside of the localities they happen in if they don't have national implications.
Why was George Tiller's murder an international news story? Murder is a state crime and it was pretty obvious from the outset that when his killer was caught he was going to be convicted. There was also limited if any policy issues attached to the case.
 
States are moving to pass new abortion clinic regulations because of Kermit Gosnell's case.
States are always moving to pass abortion restrictions with or without cause (such as this case).

Why was George Tiller's murder an international news story? Murder is a state crime and it was pretty obvious from the outset that when his killer was caught he was going to be convicted. There was also limited if any policy issues attached to the case.
Don't ask me, I gave my opinion dimwit.
I can't agree. This is inflammatory stuff and it will blow back on the entire practice of abortion. It shouldn't necessarily, but mob justice isn't rigorous or fair.
See above. Yeah, it's a lightening rod for the moment but that whole side doesn't actually need a lightening rod; the fact that abortion is illegal is all they need to be fired up 24/7. Nothing is really changing because of this.
 
States are always moving to pass abortion restrictions with or without cause (such as this case).
You feel that there will or should be no blow back at all from the numerous regulatory failures that allowed for this case to happen? I can see a stance that the effects should be limited but to state that there are no policy issues here is a little odd.
Don't ask me, I gave my opinion dimwit.
If you don't want questions about your opinion, why state it in a public forum at all?
 
See above. Yeah, it's a lightening rod for the moment but that whole side doesn't actually need a lightening rod; the fact that abortion is illegal is all they need to be fired up 24/7. Nothing is really changing because of this.

I think it's going to make people change sides, is what I'm driving at.
 
You feel that there will or should be no blow back at all from the numerous regulatory failures that allowed for this case to happen? I can see a stance that the effects should be limited but to state that there are no policy issues here is a little odd.
I feel that any blow back that could come of this is inconsequential to the greater struggle to end abortions as that will continue with or without any specific cases such as this. It may provide some temporary ammunition but in the medium to long term (or even in the short term outside of maybe a few states) this won't have a lasting impact. The march to outlaw abortions will not cease or even pick up due to this or any specific one-off case.

A national scandal where hundreds of abortion doctors are revealed for breaking the law would have an impact, maybe. But one? eh not so much. The kinds of laws and regulations some states may pass after this would have likely been passed without it.


If you don't want questions about your opinion, why state it in a public forum at all?
You see, someone asked for my opinion about what I think. I told them what I thought. Then you come along and say, well then why did this happen rahrahrah? as if my opinion had any bearing on how that thing came to be.


I think it's going to make people change sides, is what I'm driving at.

On what? Illegal late term abortions? I don't think this will cause pro-choice people to switch to pro-life as the things that happened in this case were already illegal and there is broad consensus that they should be. Given how polarized this topic is I don't think too many people will switch camps over one case of someone breaking the law to do something bad that even pro-choice people don't condone. If anything, 'blowback' could cause pro-choicers to harden their position.
 
On what? Illegal late term abortions? I don't think this will cause pro-choice people to switch to pro-life as the things that happened in this case were already illegal and there is broad consensus that they should be. Given how polarized this topic is I don't think too many people will switch camps over one case of someone breaking the law to do something bad that even pro-choice people don't condone. If anything, 'blowback' could cause pro-choicers to harden their position.

It could. I'm just saying that mass reaction isn't necessarily based on fine details.

Things like "abortion doctor puts baby feet in specimen jars" go right to the brainstem.
 
There was a time we put unwanted kids in the wood to smile at the moon an be eaten by wolves and boars. Good times.
 
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

What usually breaks into the MSM? Do you think there is some agenda there beyond pure sensationalism? If they have any agenda, it is one of pure profit-chasing sensationalism. Why were the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson trials, to name just two examples, bigger deals than 80 men being kept indefinitely in Guantanamo despite being cleared as no danger to the US? Why does nobody talk about Bradley Manning? Why isn't Nancy Grace whinging on tv about prosecuting bankers?

Because the MSM is not nearly competent enough in the whole to actually engineer some conspiracy you think is afoot.

"How often do such places devote their energies to covering the massive health disparities and poor outcomes that are wrought by our current system? How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention."

I mean, this angle wasn't covered either. You would think if the MSM had a deep ideological agenda it would be to its advantage to use this as a boogeyman for GOP cuts to Planned Parenthood etc.

If you read the Salon article, it points out at least 5 places where the Gosnell case was discussed (some at length) on the left side. They see no reason to handle the story with special gloves because to them it fits perfectly into the narrative of the exploited woman with no other choice. It also points out that conservatives have been nowhere on this.


@Patroklos, make sure you clean up before the next person uses your computer.
 
Page 1? Probably not simply because I don't feel that too many individual crimes deserve front page coverage outside of the localities they happen in if they don't have national implications. That's just my take though.

That's pretty much my criteria for what belongs on page 1. Stories with national or international implications. This story feels like it belongs on the local page of a national newspaper or at most a few pages behind the front page in the main section.
 
It is one of the reasons the situation is newsworthy IMO. Refusal of the State and NAF to preform its duty led to the abuses here. So how can we state definitively that it is an outlier other than as an article of faith?
At least you are finally starting to realize who was really to blame here. The bureaucrats who didn't close down his operation long ago despite knowing there were numerous health code infractions, as well as the Republicans who continue to deliberately remove as many inspectors as they possibly can from the government in their hypocritical quest to "limit government" that doesn't pander to their own interests.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and FNC?
And yet none of them engaged in sufficient sensationalism to apparently cover the story as you think it should have been done. Perhaps you should add the National Enquirer to that list if it isn't already actually there.
 
Because the MSM is not nearly competent enough in the whole to actually engineer some conspiracy you think is afoot.
I haven't alleged a conspiracy or anything other than a failure on the part of the media to give the case the attention it deserves. I have also specifically quoting right wing or conservative sources this thread in an attempt to avoid these types of inane remarks where people get politically defensive.
 
This story has been repeatedly covered in extensive detail in the past. It has even been the subject of at least one topic in this very forum. What apparently isn't being covered are explicit details concerning the actual trial as it occurs.

Again, why do you personally find that so important?
 
At least you are finally starting to realize who was really to blame here.
From the original post of the thread: 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.
The bureaucrats who didn't close down his operation long ago despite knowing there were numerous health code infractions, as well as the Republicans who continue to deliberately remove as many inspectors as they possibly can from the government in their hypocritical quest to "limit government" that doesn't pander to their own interests.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be "putting a barrier up to women" seeking abortions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/kermit-gosnell-abortion-c_n_812702.html
 
Back
Top Bottom