Stories and non-stories

April 13th, 2013

One of the lamest excuses for their raw agenda-pushing the liberal-fascist media has come up with yet.

But the thing is that I’m 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’s stupid remarks about rape?

So our abortion-drenched media would certainly want to cover what is arguably the country’s most horrific serial murder trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, right?

You would maybe think so…if you didn’t know anything at all about Court Media. Having a look at the accompanying picture ought to destroy any illusions you may still be clinging to about what the “mainstream” media’s purpose and intentions are once and for all. But just in case you’re one of those see-no-evil, “moderate” chimps that need clubbing over the head with it:

Then I decided, since tmatt has me reading the Washington Post every day, to look at how the paper’s 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 — who is named Sarah Kliff — and stories Akin and Fluke and Komen — yields more than 80 hits. Guess how many stories she’s done on this abortionist’s mass murder trial.

Did you guess zero? You’d be right.

So I asked her about it. Here’s her response:

Hi Molly – I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.

Yes. She really, really, really said that. As Robert VerBruggen dryly responded:

Makes sense. Similarly, national gun-policy people do not cover local crime in places like Aurora or Newtown.

So when a private foundation privately decides to stop giving money to the country’s 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’s good for months of puffy profiles.

But gosh darn it, can you think of any policy implications to this, uh, “local crime” story? And that’s all it is. Just like a bunch of other local stories the Washington Post also refuses to cover — 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 even think of covering those local crime stories? No! Oh wait, they did? Like, all the time? Hmm. That’s weird.

Yes, but more than that, it’s revealing. Bottom line: it ain’t news unless The Gatekeepers say it is. And if it might conceivably serve to slow the advance of Progressivist evil, or to show its true face to people who might otherwise be unaware of it, then they’ll always decide that it ain’t news. That is the full extent and limit of “journalistic ethics” and “editorial judgment” nowadays, from the top of the government-media complex all the way down to the lowliest local TV cub “reporter,” and it’s all you’ll ever need to know about them.

(Via Ace)

Update! “Safe, rare and legal,” stood on its empty head.

Gosnell is now on trial two years after his arrest. The stories coming from the trial via the few outlets willing to pay attention are horrific and gruesome. But what’s more, similar stories are trickling out from other abortion clinics. The uncommon barbarism of Kermit Gosnell’s clinic turns out to be more common than most might imagine.

But they won’t imagine it.

Had Kermit Gosnell killed dogs, HLN would be giving it wall to wall coverage as they do all sorts of sensational trials. Nancy Grace would be in full outrage mode every night through the course of the trial. It’s sad that a man who engaged in horrific acts of barbarism will never be as known to the public as Casey Anthony or George Zimmerman because Gosnell’s crime is viewed as less than a crime by the vast majority of the producers of American news.

It’s a lot worse than just “sad.” A LOT worse.

Giving the dogs their due update! Driscoll: “So yes, I can imagine the coverage if dogs were involved. And the media looking the other way there, too, if need be.” Sure enough. Whatever level of dishonesty it takes to protect what they want to protect, and destroy what they think needs destroying.

Share
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Anthony L.
    April 13th, 2013 at 09:33 | #1
    I just don't know what to say. These people are fucking MONSTERS. Gosnell let newborns writhe on a table for 10 minutes before he snipped their spinal cords with a pair of shears. Hey, at least he didn't shoot 'em in the head with an AR-15. Move along, nothing to see here...

    I am not the overly emotional type, but this story almost made me physically ill. I better stop before I write something sure to have the authorities over for a visit this afternoon.

Comments are closed.
Home > Liberals Lie, Near-Naked Propaganda > Stories and non-stories
Guitar Lessons - Renegade Motorhome - Costa Rica - British Virgin Islands