DescentBB

It has long been known that news media has dropped any facade of being unbiased and are advocates for their "side's" agenda- however in this case it is inexcusable.

The Kermit Gosnell murder trial has been completely ignored by major media- until now. Why?

Gosnell case: HuffPost host says left ‘made a decision’ to not cover trial

In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill made clear where his theoretical thinking lay:

“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

Amazing that someone finally admitted the truth about the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... ver-trial/

I've read about it, but not in the mainstream media like you said. And yeah, it's inexcusable and horrifying. I first saw it in Yahoo News. It's the most horrific case I've ever heard about. It's so bad, I just might become a right to lifer (I'm serious). If the left wants to hide this kind of sh*t, they're not doing themselves a favor.

As for hiding these types of stories from "family viewers", they're hypocrites. I saw more blood splattered around on TV last night in primetime than in the last few years of war coverage combined.

MSNBC has been covering it. And, fwiw, it could easily be used as an example of the need for safe, affordable abortion options other than visiting a hack like Gosnell.

What's worse is that inhuman hacks like this guy will be the NORM if abortion is outlawed.

Phhfft. As it is, abortion clinics are not under the same laws as a doctor preforming a tonsillectomy.

There is no data to back your statement.

I've been following this... at least as much as I can stomach.

Rather than throwing spin (e.g. "Look who is/isn't reporting on this!", "See, this is what can happen with legal abortions!", "See, this is what you'd get by outlawing abortion!"), here's the question I think is the crux of the matter:

* What is the ethical difference between what Gosnell was doing, and controversial-but-legal-in-some-cases late-term abortion methods like IDX ("partial-brith")?

Nothing I can see.

Look. What if someone at Fox News or the Wall Street Journal said "We made a decision on the right not to cover the murder trial of an abortion doctor's assassin because it may hurt the right to life cause" what would you say? This is EXACTLY what the leftist media (meaning the so-called mainstream media) has DONE in this case.

Stories are being buried because they don't fit the agenda of the supposed impartial media. Is this something that strengthens your trust in media?

In fact- say you ARE supportive of abortion rights. Even if burying certain stories helps your cause- these actions by media erode your trust- as it should for any rational and intelligent person that believes in truth.

No, you're quite right on all counts, TB.

I think that after Obama's first election campaign that it was so obvious that we kinda quit caring. I just stopped watching broadcast news after that.

And THAT is nearly as bad.

Lucky for you Bunny-Buns this one-sided media is growing increasingly irrelevant as more and more people customize the way they get and share information. For example, I didn't know anything about this trial until it was mentioned here. And in fact, a large percentage of the news I get is from sites like this and whatever spills into my RSS feeds (though I do have Reuters in my feed list). Soon it won't matter if this "mainstream" media wants to bury a story. It will rise like the undead and devour us all! Actually, I think the mainstream media has already died. I think the last time I regularly checked CNN.com was in 2006. Also, I don't own a TV, just a laptop. If it don't stream, I don't see it.

And this is why TV is slowly dying.

Foil wrote:* What is the ethical difference between what Gosnell was doing, and controversial-but-legal-in-some-cases late-term abortion methods like IDX ("partial-brith")?

None. I think abortions, IF they have to be performed as a legal medical procedure, should ONLY be done within the first month of pregnancy. These late term abortions that this guy performed are beyond inhuman. I don't know how a medical doctor, if he's a human being with any soul at all, could even have the conscience to kill something that cries out as it's "terminated". "Shudder"

This thread makes me sad.