Media bias exists not only in how they cover stories, but in their choice of stories to cover.
I write a lot of columns, both here at USA TODAYand elsewhere. Like pretty much everyone who writes opinion columns, I hope that people will read what I write and look at things differently as a result. It happens, sometimes. But very few have the impact of Kirsten Powers' column on the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell that ran in these pages last week.
Before Powers' column, the case wasn't on the national radar. Oh, it was getting attention from pro-life writers, conservative media critics, and law bloggers, but in terms of national media, the story didn't exist. It wasn't on the national radar until Powers' column opened with this: "Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations? It's not your fault. Since Gosnell's trial began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page."
Once that column ran, more people started talking. Writing in the Atlantic a couple of days later, Conor Friedersdorf wrote "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story." He commented: "The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy. "
Yes. So why wasn't it news? Pro-choice writer Megan McArdle of The Daily Beastnotes that it's about fear of where the story would go, and what it would require writers to confront: "Gosnell is accused of grisly crimes that I didn't want to think about. ... I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective -- of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories -- if the sick-making was done by 'our side.' "
No comments:
Post a Comment