Philadelphia Abortion Doctor’s Trial Not Important To Liberal Media, Pro-Lifers See Bias

In a sensational and horrific case, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist was charged with eight counts of murder. One patient allegedly died under his care after a botched abortion, and seven infants born alive, whose spinal cords Gosnell allegedly severed with scissors, are among the known atrocities. The trial began on March 18, with an amazing lack of coverage, according to recent reports from the Washington Times. Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist, meaning that any coverage of the trial risks painting the pro-choice movement in an unflattering light. In a statement issued last week, twenty conservative leaders called for an end to what they described as a “media blackout” and “censoring” of the trial for political reasons. (report from the Wash. Times) “The mainstream media has been studiously avoiding the trial of abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell, despite the kind of stomach-churning testimony that would normally attract headline coverage,” John Hayward said in a column Monday in Human Events. Read the entire article at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/abortion-doctor-on-trial-but-media-not-interested/

41 thoughts on “Philadelphia Abortion Doctor’s Trial Not Important To Liberal Media, Pro-Lifers See Bias”

  1. You claim that the”liberal media” media, in general, and NewsJournal, in particular, has not fulfilled its “journalistic duty” when the article you cite says just the opposite.

    “The trial is being covered by The Associated Press, and AP wire stories have appeared on network websites. The proceedings also are receiving heavy coverage on pro-life and religious websites such as LifeNews, as well as newspapers and television in the Philadelphia and Delaware markets.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/abortion-doctor-on-trial-but-media-not-interested/#ixzz2Q3XAPkAq

  2. delacrat

    “You claim that the”liberal media” media, in general, and NewsJournal, in particular, has not fulfilled its , “journalistic duty” when the article you cite says just the opposite.”

    Yes, that’s exactly what I claim. This is a story of gross human rights violations, murder and horrific infanticide. The NewJournal was covering the Sandy Hook massacre for over a week with solid wall-to-wall coverage. Where is their horror and distaste for Kermit Gosnell’s atrocities.
    Where is the concern for the seven infants, born alive and slaughtered innocently as they drew their first breaths. Where is the same rage that was shown for the children innocently murdered at Sandy Hook
    You got it exactly right delacrat, I am not only horrified at the crimes committed here but am appalled at the lack of interest shown by the liberal media.

    I only singled out the NewsJournal because they are allegedly Delaware’s newspaper

  3. Delacrat, you prove the point. There may be a reporter in the room, but the editors back in the office aren’t using what their reporters are sending in from the courtroom. So it’s worse than we thought. The reports are available to be published and broadcast. But it gets very little treatment in the news media when the editors decide what to cover.

  4. And I thought that liberals were so concerned about “the children”

    Here children were murdered.

    Compare Newtown where children were killed with a gun with Gosnell’s office where children alive and born were killed with a knife.

    You’d think the media would be equally interested in both, right?

  5. If those babies had been killed by a crazy person with an AR-15 instead of an abortionist with scissors then it’s likely that what remains of main streams of media would be full of information on it.

    If it bleeds, it leads? Apparently that’s not accurate.

    Who cares what the “mainstream” media and the entertainers in it (to the extent that it still exists) focuses on anymore? I guess we may have to care for a little longer, due to old people watching the “evening news,” epistemic inertia*… etc. But trends in technology are not on the side of “mainstream” news these days… so case closed?

    *This reaction is often funny: “Someone may have made that Youtube video up!” Yeah… maybe… although in many causes it’s less likely than the evening news itself being made up. How do sheeple think that “mainstream” producers used to produce the “evening news” (something else that’s almost obsolete) and had the best mesmerizing and hypnotic imbeciles (e.g. Jennings) that money could buy dutifully reading their teleprompters and so on and so forth?

  6. Maybe this is something along the lines of what people are talking about when they say the mainstream media isn’t “covering” something:

    The audience knows the anchors will provide the meaning and the official voice of the tragedy. The anchors are, in a way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their elegies to the dead.
    This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get.
    This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime.
    For example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions….
    Suppose that became the primary focus. Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God forbid, the truth.
    In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers. What a concept.
    No, a priest doesn’t browbeat a parishioner. He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption. Link

    I.e. they’re not going there to provide meaning to the situation or to take a collective confession of sins while offering a route to redemption through the State, signing ceremonies and so on and so forth. They’re not even proposing having a signing ceremony by the entertainer in chief? No, they’re not “covering” the story or making it into a big national issue for politicians in that “mainstream” way that they sometimes have.

    As Bernie Goldberg puts it, the media has become the national Cathedral.

    (Yet much of what one sees in the mainstream is a version of “Piss Christ”… i.e. trendy journalists getting information trickled down on them in the main stream and generally just going with the flow.)

  7. What many of you seek in your news is not news. Rather it is hype. The definition of news is:

    1.Newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events.
    2.A broadcast or published report of news.

    You may want more commentary or analysis but that’s not news. You may desire what could loosly be called propaganda, but that really isn’t news. What you refer to as bias is really just propaganda. Most of you prefer Fox News, not because they provide the straight unvarnished facts (We report, you decide). Rather it is because they provide a slant that fits your construct. Hence the term “news you can choose.” Regardless of whether one is “liberal” or “conservative” there is a media outlet that gives you what you want (on a side note, I often wonder if why one would deliberately choose to hear just that which they believe unless they desire confirmation or reinforcement).

    Personally, I prefer a media outlet that just gives me the facts. But “just the facts ma’am” unfortunately has gone the way of the Dodo bird. Now we are left with the ratings game. Outrage politics has evolved into outrage media which feeds the need of the public to be outraged over everything.

    I still seek out sources of information that provide me with unvarnished facts. Unfortunately, there are precious few sources for that. So while the masses seek a shepherd, I have to resort to gleaning facts from the stream of pablum that substitutes for news. Fortunately I have a penchant for checking, cross checking and digging for source material without having to rely upon a shepherd to feed me. And in that, I often feel like the Lone Ranger.

  8. I guess none of you have seen the front page of today’s News Journal?

    I didn’t comment on that because I wasn’t aware that many people still read the News Journal.

    It would be interesting if an old “mainstream” (???) publication like the News Journal decided that all bets were off and began really investigating the banksters, 911, the military industrial complex, everything… instead of generally leaving all that to the decentralized media. I suspect that their readership would actually go up if they didn’t rely on being trickled down on from AP in general or wherever they’re getting their “news.”

    It’s said that sensationalism sells? What could be more sensational than unprecedented DHS ammo buys or army drills in cities or the possibility of financial collapse due to the actions of banksters and the stories typical to the decentralized media? So… sensationalism sells? Well, not exactly… with respect to the “mainstream” media it would seem that they trend toward operating within certain parameters with the stories that they’re selling and the credibility that they give “official sources say.”

    After all, people usually don’t want the sort of sensationalism that may undermine or destroy the overall paradigm or the market that more trivial forms of sensationalism exists in. For instance, if they investigated and undermined “full faith and credit” in the bankster’s paper ponzi then they might not be able to write about and entertain people with how Kim Kardashian and Kanye West may name their baby Kash or whatever. (So their first names = KKK? That would be ironic.)

  9. I posted this last night before the WNJ was on the stands. So my post stands Biggums. There timing is impeccable. Coincidence? the NewsJournal probably posted it in response to the Washington Times article and several others nationwide.
    BTW, what nationality is the surname Biggums

  10. So while the masses seek a shepherd, I have to resort to gleaning facts from the stream of pablum that substitutes for news.

    If people want news then they’re probably going to have to learn to sort through multiple streams of it for themselves. Competition, etc… is probably actually healthier than having one big “mainstream” media (inc.) creating perceptions.

    Fortunately I have a penchant for checking, cross checking and digging for source material…

    Apparently it’s usually more fun and entertaining to get into a pissing contest about the nature and quality of different streams of media than to focus on trying to direct the media toward “covering” reality itself in some way. Fun times. And after all, aren’t perceptions reality among the masses due to different streams of media trickling down on them from official sources and so forth? So if a news anchor stands in front of an event and reports on it, apparently it’s been covered.

  11. Don,

    I hate to tell you but the Gosnell trial was a front page, above-the-fold story in the News Journal yesterday as well.

    Was that after the Times story also?

  12. TC
    Thanks, I’ve amended the post appropriately. There has been much criticism nationwide about the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of this trial but I have redacted my criticism of the Wilmington NewsJournal and appropriately so.

  13. Dave on April 10, 2013 at 07:06 said: “What many of you seek in your news is not news. Rather it is hype. ”

    Dave, nice Left-wing sophistry trying to excuse the sins of the liberal news media.

    But talking about what would be ideal in the news is off the mark when nothing else in the mainstream media is covered that way.

    So what we seek is fair and unbiased treatment.

    If the News Journal and other liberal media outlets were to adopt your standard EQUALLY ACROSS THE BOARD that would be a totally different world bearing no relationship to the political corruption our country faces. But when some left-wing stories are hyped and stories with conservative implications are buried, then the problems stands.

    Dave you would defend one definition of news for stories with left-wing arguments and a different definition of news for stories with conservative implications

  14. MSNBC reported on it: The Barbaric Operation of Baby-Killer Kermit Gosnell and Staff

    Not that it really matters, given that MSNBC’s ratings may fall below that of cat videos on Youtube soon. It’s not as if they’re mainstream.

    They must have felt safe in reporting on that but not on reporting on elements in the abortion industry in Chicago that Obama may have had ties with. Little wonder that he was basically the only legislator to stand against the born alive infant protection act if he did have those ties and so on. Apparently there may be a few things that he’s willing to take a stand for based on some sort of deep principles? Actually, even in that case he couldn’t get his story straight about why he did what he did:

    Obama denied any contradiction during an interview that year with the Christian Broadcasting Network, accusing the antiabortion committee of lying about the circumstances of his vote. Here’s what he said:
    “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks* are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”
    From what we can tell, Obama [“””””]misrepresented[“””””] the facts during this interview. The 2003 bill addressed his concerns about undermining Roe v. Wade, and it matched the federal legislation that he supported virtually word for word. –Washington Post

    *Alert, alert… he’s probably about to be “perfectly clear” again, folks. He’s not a leader, although he plays one on TV.

    I.e. he’s probably just thinking and calculating: “What do I need to say here to maintain the base of my political power?” And that’s the extent of it.

  15. Obama Live Birth Abortion Induced Labor Abortions 2008

    It would be one thing if Obama was taking out banksters left and right for the sake of the poor and the least of these instead of giving them new cuff links with the Presidential Seal of approval on them. It would be one thing if he wasn’t assassinating 16 year old Muslim kids without trial and merely doing like he’s told by fascists (inc.). It would be one thing if he was crusading on real civil rights issues. If this was just one issue where he happened by happenstance to come into agreement with fascists and the old eugenics elite with respect to the poor and the least of these then that would be one thing. That might be one thing that he just happened to be misguided about while still fighting the good fight against the banksters, etc.

    But it’s not just this one thing where he is an abject failure with respect to protecting the least of these in the least… it’s almost everything. The poor, he stands back and lets them be taken advantage of by banksters. Poor Palestinians, he generally lets Israel do whatever and keeps the military industrial complex flowing. Babies born alive, the only thing he seems to stand for is standing back and letting them die. The elderly, leaves them to big insurance companies and bigger pools of paper ponzi financed by the banksters instead of issuing an interest and debt free currency or working to create wealth in reality for them… Etc.

    How is he supposedly looking out for any of the least of these like he keeps saying that he is? I wonder, exactly who is he talking about or supposedly helping?

  16. “Regardless of whether one is “liberal” or “conservative” there is a media outlet that gives you what you want ”

    I suppose you miss that part of my comment Jon. I wonder if you ever read someone’s comments all the way through. Mine are certainly shorter than yours.

    Regardless, you really are a silly boy. You said “Dave you would defend one definition of news for stories with left-wing arguments and a different definition of news for stories with conservative implications”

    How did you reach that conclusion from my comments and just what are “conservative implications.” I admit that’s a new phrase for me. Is that sort of a synonym for “conservative slant?” Or that conservatives would care more about certain story being reported in a certain manner? Please explain that one to me, I’m really curious.

    (honestly though, I’m not curious, I just think it would entertaining to see how spin that phrase because you are one of the most adroit gymnasts I’ve ever read – well maybe not a gymnast, perhaps contortionist would be a better word)

  17. Liberals and most democrats do not care about children, they use them as talking points and props, nothing more. Look back at Ted Kennedy’s views on abortion which were to the Right of mine when he was a young senator, then he gave in and towed the D line.

    The once proud democrat party stood for working men and women now they represent far left nut jobs and radicals. Harry Truman and JFK would not stand a chance in today’s media or Democrat party. For the fools who say neither would Reagan, you are stupid. Reagan would clean up over the weak and feckless GOP leaders we have now.

    Abortion is a travesty at all levels.

  18. The so-called “liberal” media dwells on women’s pregnancy abortions to distract the people from corporate job abortions.

  19. news with conservative implications = (quite obviously) news stories that prove conservative policies are correct, and liberal policies are incorrect.

    For example:

    Clinton tries to appease the Muslim world and then they attack the USS Cole and the World Trade Center on 9/11. Implication: Liberal foreign policy is a failed concept founded on false assumptions about how the world works.

    Or: Abortion is just about a woman meeting with her doctor and making a purely medical decision to make a pregnancy magically disappear without any consequences.

    NEWS: The reality is quite different, that abortions are unsanitary, hack jobs, often not performed by physicians, often with little or no real consultation with the pregnant woman, whose purpose is to kill an innocent child.

    News with conservative implications = THE TRUTH intruding into the liberal fantasy world

  20. Truthful news with liberal (perhaps) implications:

    The USA goes to war appropriately and correctly in Iraq and Afghanistan (both) but then spends about 100 times more money than is really necessary.

    Conclusion (says Jon Moseley): Break out the firing squads, blindfolds and cigarettes. Any person, bureaucrat, elected official, or private company who gouged the cause of our nations’ defense should be lined up against a wall and SHOT. Give them a blindfold. Give them a last cigarette. Ask them for their last words. Then order the firing squad to shoot them as TRAITORS.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the right thing to do.

    The expense of those wars is nothing less than treason which cripples the country’s national defense. We cannot afford to defend the country because every time the country has to defend itself, the cost is crushing.

  21. “Abortion is a travesty at all levels.”

    True. And to most effective way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate unwanted pregnancy by any and all means. Any takers? Anyone? Somebody?

    I thought so.

    “Abortion is a travesty at all levels…”, but I’m not willing to do anything about eliminating unwanted pregnancy” Now we have the complete thought.

  22. “news with conservative implications = (quite obviously) news stories that prove conservative policies are correct, and liberal policies are incorrect.”

    Good answer (and you even got it right). Here, let me shorten it for you.

    “News that validates my beliefs”

    There ya go. Humor aside, that’s the first time you’ve admitted what I said long ago that you seek only information that validates your beliefs and disregard any information that may invalidate or challenge those beliefs. I respect those who have the strength of their convictions. Unfortunately, that respect must also be tempered with sadness that their convictions preceded the information with which would serve as the foundation for those convictions.

    Blind faith is attractive simply because there is no responsibility on the part of the believer to rationalize their beliefs. It is simply sufficient to just believe and once that belief has rooted it is necessary only to occasionally nourish it, feeding it only that which nourishes the belief and discarding everything else as a contaminate.

  23. Clinton tries to appease the Muslim world and then they attack the USS Cole and the World Trade Center on 9/11. Implication: Liberal foreign policy is a failed concept founded on false assumptions about how the world works.

    Terrism for dummies…

    Stop being stupid.

  24. Or in the case of the USS Cole and 911, at least pay attention long enough to make them use different terrists with different identities that don’t trace back to our own “intelligence” agencies, such as they are. (Have they found some WMDs in Assad’s underwear yet?) Anyway, at least make them work for it, if you’re going to let the military industrial complex and its mass media (inc.) produce your view of “how the world works” (cough). Geez.

  25. Blind faith is attractive simply because there is no responsibility on the part of the believer to rationalize their beliefs.

    You mean like your blind faith in official conspiracy theories about Muslims living in caves penetrating America’s defense systems and so on and so forth?

  26. Clinton tries to appease the Muslim world…

    What does that even mean? I forget what the world looks like to some people.

  27. Dave on April 10, 2013 at 13:21 said: “News that validates my beliefs”

    No, Dave, news that proves in the eyes of any honest person that conservative policies should be followed and liberal policies should be discarded as wrong, harmful, and dumb.

    If by validating you mean proving that EVERYONE should adopt conservative policies because they work and liberal policies fail, then I will look past the semantics

  28. Dave

    “Abortion is a travesty at all levels…”, but I’m not willing to do anything about eliminating unwanted pregnancy” Now we have the complete thought.”

    What we are talking about with Kermit Gosnell is taking abortion to a heinous level. Even people that are solidly pro-abortion are unbelievably shocked to the gag-level.
    When I thing of a person delivering a live birth and immediately severing the spinal cord, I wonder why we are wasting our money on a trial. I know that smacks of vigilantism but it the first thought that comes to my mind. I’m thankful that I’m not the guard that has to transport this animal to court.

  29. The intention of this post was to ask the question or at least promote the suggestion of: When did abortion become so acceptable that this kind of unbelievable crime is being defended by liberal because they are in fear of losing on the entire abortion issue? If it did become that acceptable, what happened to our humanity?

  30. The main stream media knows how to make a story fade away or make it the topic of household conversation or “water cooler ” talk at the office. They pick and choose what stories will advance to this type of coverage or hype. Yes they will marginally cover stories that don’t jibe with the accepted liberal narrative, but that is usually a token gesture so that they can claim journalistic integrity.

  31. “What we are talking about with Kermit Gosnell is taking abortion to a heinous level. ”

    I agree. Want to get on board the ‘eliminate unwanted pregnancy’ train as a means to eliminate heinous acts such as this?

  32. Dave, do you? To avoid unintended pregnancy requires a moral component of “Don’t do it” and “act responsibly.”

    Everyone over the age of 14 knows where babies come from.

    Everyone over the age of 14 knows what a condom is and how to use one, and where to get one for free.

    So the only missing ingredients are morality and responsibility

  33. “So the only missing ingredients are morality and responsibility”

    Ah a solution! How’s that solution working out for you so far? It’s kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket isn’t it?

    To pharaphrase you “I advocate eliminating unwanted pregnancy only by instilling morality and responsibility of those who are of child making age and, of course, outlawing all abortion”

    So if you can’t do it by that means, nothing else will do? When the road ahead is closed and arriving at your destination is vital, you wait until the road is open or find the next quickest alternative route? I know what I do, but then I’m a pragmatist.

  34. Dave on April 12, 2013 at 11:18 said: “Ah a solution! How’s that solution working out for you so far?”

    Why don’t we try it and find out? OH! WE DID! And it worked just fine when it was the dominant culture of the United States.

    Dave also writes: “It’s kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket isn’t it? ”

    No, not at all, because all the other bases are covered. Let’s explore all the other possible solutions:

    BIRTH CONTROL: Available everywhere. Walk down the aisles of a grocery store. Visit a 7-11 at 3:00 AM.

    DONE!

    SEX EDUCATION: Children who still think there is a Santa Claus already know where babies come from. It’s everywhere. There is no one old enough to see a PG-13 movie who doesn’t already know what causes pregnancy.

    DONE!

    FINANCIAL AVAILABILITY: You can get free condoms at a free clinic, at school, or at college.

    DONE!

    TEACHING PEOPLE TO BE CAREFUL:

    NOT DONE!

    MAKING PEOPLE TAKE THE RISKS SERIOUSLY:

    NOT DONE! We’d rather make people feel good while they ruin their lives.

    So all the other eggs have been counted, collected, cooked, and eaten, Dave.

  35. “when it was the dominant culture of the United States. ”

    Except, since (in your opinion) with all the other bases covered, you have nothing left to do except recreate this notion of the dominant culture (where the things you didn’t think happened actually did happen quite frequently, but it was only whispered about) which you have snowball’s chance in hell of doing.

    So, pretty much you are left with squat. No ideas, no solutions, no nothing except continual grasping for what once was, singing “The Way We Were” with nostalgic pining for what can no longer be, leaving the rest of us to deal with the future. Well ok, I’m down with that.

  36. For three days after an ABC6 Action News report on two former Planned Parenthood revealing Gosnell-like conditions (guerneys with bloody drainage from last patient, unsterile instruments) at 625 Shipley St, the News Journal — premiere newspaper in Delaware — maintained its silence. No comment whatsoever on the shocking allegations revealed by a Philadelphia television station after the News Journal ignored attempts by the whistle-blowing nurses to give them the story. Finally, the News Journal reports on Planned Parenthood…
    Does the News Journal mention the allegations of filthy conditions and a “meat market style of assembly line abortions” that abc6 reported on? Nope. Does it mention $5000 in fines paid by PPDE in 2012 for OSHA violations including dirty needles and untrained staff handling contagious materials? Nope! Does it mention 22 staffers quit or fired since 2012? Nope, nope, and nope! What does it tell the people of Delaware?
    This sterling piece of journalism says that the new CEO of Planned Parenthood, Ruth Lytle-Barnaby, has suspended in-office abortions (surgery) in order to train new staff. First State for Life

Comments are closed.