Eight Reasons for the Media Blackout on Gosnell
From
Trevin Wax:
8 Reasons for the Media Blackout on Kermit Gosnell
On Twitter and FaceBook today, #Gosnell
is trending. The reason for the social media buzz is the strange
silence of the mainstream media regarding one of the most gruesome
murder trials in American history.
To put the Kermit Gosnell trial in perspective, consider other famous cases of child-killing. From Susan Smith to Andrea Yates, and most recently the horror of Newtown, we are accustomed to 24/7 news coverage of these types of tragedies.
Not so with Dr. Gosnell.
Here are the reasons why:
1. The Gosnell case involves an abortionist.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the abortionist must be
portrayed as a victim of hate and intolerance, not a perpetrator of
violence. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps
“abortionist” separate from testimony about dead women and children.
2. The Gosnell case involves an unregulated abortion clinic.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as a “refuge” for women in distress, not a “house of horrors”
where women are taken advantage of. But it is impossible to spin this
story in a way that keeps “abortion clinic” away from negative
connotations.
3. The Gosnell case involves protestors who, for years, stood
outside 3801 Lancaster and prayed, warning people about what was taking
place inside.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the protestors must be
portrayed as agitators and extremists, not peaceful people who urge
mothers to treasure the miracle inside them. But it is impossible to
spin this story in a way that keeps the abortion protestors from looking
like heroes.
4. The Gosnell case involves gruesome details about living, viable babies having their spinal cords “snipped” outside the womb.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the details of an
abortion procedure are to be avoided. But it is impossible to spin this
story in a way that keeps people from asking why such violent killing is
unjust moments after birth, yet acceptable at any other time during the
pregnancy.
5. The Gosnell case raises the question of human rights.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must
always be framed in terms of a woman’s “reproductive rights,” not a
baby’s “human rights.” But it is impossible to spin this story in a way
that keeps people from asking why “reproductive rights” should trump
“human rights” – or why a doctor devoted to “reproductive rights” would
(without any apparent twinge of conscience) violate human rights so
egregiously.
6. The Gosnell case involves the regulation of abortion clinics.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be
portrayed as under siege from anti-abortion extremists. But it is
impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep people from
pushing for policy change and further regulation of Planned Parenthood
and other abortion clinics.
7. The Gosnell case exposes the disproportionate number of
abortion clinics in inner cities and the disproportionate number of
abortions among minority groups.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must be
framed in terms of providing “access” for low-income, minority women.
But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from
wondering if perhaps some abortion providers are “targeting” low-income,
minority women.
8. The Gosnell case competes with recent stories about states enacting broad laws banning many abortions.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the choice of coverage
must focus on the threat to a woman’s “right to choose.” But it is
impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep Americans from
joining together to enact more common-sense regulation of late-term
abortions.
No comments:
Post a Comment