Reporter has his abortion story censored by pro-abortion editor

An article in the Los Angeles Times  says:

“Ethan Bronner says that when he wrote a story for the Boston Globe last year on late-term abortions, a copy editor questioned his description of a surgical procedure “destroying” the fetus by “crushing forming skulls and bones.” Bronner says the editor told him, “As far as I’m concerned, until that thing is born, it is really no different from a kidney; it is part of the woman’s body.” To talk about “destroying” it or about “forming bones,” the editor said, “is really to distort the issue.”

DAVID SHAW “Abortion Bias Seeps Into News” Los Angeles Times JUL 01, 1990

24w66

Above: 24 week old preborn baby. yes, her bones are crushed in a late term abortion.

Share on Facebook

Irish journalist: mocking pro-lifers is a “bloodsport” among journalists

Jason Walsh, Irish reporter, says:

“Mocking antiabortion campaigners is a bloodsport among journalists…”

James Walsh Ireland’s Modern Proposal (Not Safe for Work Corporation, 2013) Kindle edition

Share on Facebook

Reporter comments on media bias

From an article on media bias in the abortion debate. Lisa Myers, who covers abortion for NBC:

“I do believe that some of the stories I have read or seen have almost seemed like cheerleading for the pro-choice side.”

DAVID SHAW “Abortion Bias Seeps Into NewsLos Angeles Times JUL 01, 1990

Share on Facebook

Clinic escort pretends to be woman seeking abortion for media

Randy Alcorn, who participated in pro-life rescues, told the following story:

“A Minneapolis pastor told me of an incident at a rescue he observed firsthand. While rescuers were blocking access to an abortion clinic, news cameras arrived. A young woman then tried to make her way into the clinic and was peacefully prevented by the locked arms of the rescuers. She sobbed, right in front of the television cameras, “I’m just here for a Pap smear – why won’t you let me in?” obviously, this made ideal footage to discredit rescuing.

A little while later, the pastor saw the same woman wearing one of the clinic’s “escort” vests. She had been working for the abortion clinic all along! The entire drama had been staged and the woman was an actress, a phony. When the pastor pointed this out to the news crew, its members didn’t care. They said, “We have our story.” And they put it on the news that evening. Though they knew it was absolutely false, it served their purposes.”

Randy C. Alcorn Is Rescuing Right? (Downers Grove, Illinois, Inter-Varsity Press, 1990) 135

Share on Facebook

Reporter criticized for writing story that hurt the pro-choice cause

An article in the LA Times on media bias in the abortion issue said:

“When reporter Susan Okie wrote on Page 1 of the Washington Post last year that advances in the treatment of premature babies could undermine support for the abortion-rights movement, she quickly heard from someone in the movement.

“Her message was clear,” Okie recalled recently. “I felt that they were . . . (saying) ‘You’re hurting the cause’ . . . that I was . . . being herded back into line.”

Okie says she was “shocked” by the “disquieting” assumption implicit in the complaint–that reporters, especially women reporters, are expected to write only stories that support abortion rights.”

DAVID SHAW “Abortion Bias Seeps Into News” Los Angeles Times JUL 01, 1990

Share on Facebook

News service distorts truth about pro-life rescue

Randy C. Alcorn, who attended a pro-life rescue (a sit in at an abortion clinic) told the following story about the reporter who interviewed him.

“I was interviewed at one rescue by a newspaper reporter. We had talked at length, and I was pleased that all the rescuers were very calm and controlled, so he wouldn’t have any grounds for a sensational story and hopefully stick to the facts.

Later, however, one woman who was not with our group and did not come to rescue arrived on the scene and began shouting at the clinic personnel and one policeman. One of our leaders took her aside and begged her to stop. I immediately went to the same reporter and pointed out that the woman shouting was not with the group doing the rescue, and in fact we were actively trying to calm her down and get her off the premises. I specifically said, “Please don’t give the impression that she’s with us, because she isn’t.”

The article in the next morning’s paper focused on this woman and her shouting and name-calling. It left the definite impression that she was not only with our group, but representative of our behavior. This isolated 10 minute incident, totally uncharacteristic of the rest of the five hours we were there, became the major focus of the story. 500,000 readers would come away with a completely inaccurate impression of both the rescue and the rescuers.”

Randy C. Alcorn Is Rescuing Right? (Downers Grove, Illinois, Inter-Varsity Press, 1990) 134 – 135

Share on Facebook

Officials won’t let aborted babies be photographed

Pro-Life author William Brennan writes about how, when some bodies of aborted babies were found in California, public officials would not let anyone take photographs of them.

“In February 1982 officials from the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office and the Department of Health Services told press photographers and television crews that “no photographs” could be taken of aborted bodies found in a huge cargo container in Wilmington, California. “A lot are partially dismembered,” explained coroner office representative Mason Johnson. “You wouldn’t want to photograph that.”

Mary Dunn “500 Fetal Bodies Found” National Catholic Register February 21, 1982, P1

Quoted in William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983) 165

Brennan suggests that authorities refused to let media outlets take pictures because they wanted to hide the reality of abortion.

Share on Facebook

Deaths of birds vs deaths of babies

William Brennan wrote about two articles that appeared in the New York Times on the same day, right next to each other.  One was about an abortion case where a doctor killed a baby close to birth. The other was about the deaths of birds.

The contrast between the two of them shows how twisted society has become since Roe Vs. Wade:

“The ironclad tenacity of the press’s schizophrenic attitude toward destruction was flagrantly displayed in two editorials which appeared next to one another in the New York Times of February 19, 1975.

The first commentary, entitled “Abortion Error” expresses considerable dismay over the conviction of Dr. Kenneth C Edelin for manslaughter in the case of a late-term abortion [that witnesses say led the live birth of a baby who was then killed]. The decision of the jury is characterized as “a blow not only to physicians who perform legal abortions but also to the women who need these operations or may need then in the future.” The Times editorial cites “the historic Supreme Court verdict legalizing abortion” as a basis for predicting the reversal Dr. Edelin’s conviction, but still bemoans the fact that “the damage done to the cause of rational abortion may be much harder to undo than the conviction itself.”

(“Abortion Error” New York Times February 19, 1974, p 34)

Immediately following upon the heels of the preceding editorial is one with an entirely different slant entitled “Bird Massacre.” The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is taken to task for having “upheld the legality of killing millions of starlings, grackles, and red-winged blackbirds that roost near military installations in Kentucky and Tennessee.” Other culprits identified are the city of Paducah, Kentucky and the Army for initiating a policy of spraying the birds “with a detergent that removes protective oil from their feathers, causing them to die.” The writer does not hesitate to emphasize that “the poignant spectacle of millions of dead and dying birds ought to make Army and municipal officials reconsider this hideous project, particularly as they cannot achieve their objectives by this mass slaughter.” Plans generated for dealing with the birds are likened to “the kind of repeated bird massacres that exterminated the once common passenger pigeon”.…

(“Bird Massacre” The New York Times February 19, 1975, p34)

To the Times semanticists, the killing of unborn humans is simply a matter of “legal abortion,” “these operations,” “an action” or “rational abortion.” The killing of birds, on the other hand, is saturated with such concepts as “bird massacres,” “killing,” “the slaughter,” “dead and dying birds,” “hideous project,” “mass slaughter,” and “exterminated.”

The words used to describe the deaths of birds contrast starkly with the words used to describe abortions.

William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983) 157

deaths of birds

Which is worse? The deaths of babies (like these) or the deaths of birds?

Share on Facebook

Proabortion media bias distorts government hearing

Pro-lifer William Brennan tells the following story illustrating media bias:

“On April 24 and 25, 1981, 8 medical scientists testified before a Senate subcommittee convened to examine the nature of intra-uterine existence and it beginnings. 7 of them provided compelling scientific-based evidence that the entity within the womb is an actual human being from conception onward. Only one individual, Yale University geneticist Dr. Leon E. Rosenberg, portrayed the beginning of life before birth and therefore the humanness of the unborn as simply a “question” and not a “scientific matter.”

An article which appeared in the New York Times of April 25, 1981, included not only extensive coverage of Dr. Rosenberg’s remarks, but also his picture. None of the testimony of those who presented the scientific case for the humanity of the unborn was quoted. Dr. Rosenberg was described in glowing terms: “one of the nation’s leading geneticists” and “chairman of the department of Medicine and former president of the American Society of Human Genetics.

In contrast, the article contains little or no information whatsoever about the outstanding credentials and achievements of the 7 scientists who contradicted Dr. Rosenberg’s excursions into mythology, especially Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University René Descartes in Paris. Not only is Dr. Lejeune regarded by many as the world’s leading geneticist, his achievements are considered so monumental that he had even been nominated for a Nobel prize. Obviously, this is the kind of information a reporter finds it convenient to omit, particularly when it is so potentially disruptive to the overriding image being projected of the unborn as a question rather than a human being.”

William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983)

The article Brennan is referring to is Bernard Weinraub “Senator Agrees to Extend Hearings on Abortion Bill” New York Times April 25, 1981, p 7

Share on Facebook

Founder of NARAL Pro-Choice: we wined and dined the media

The late former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson cofounded NARAL, the country’s first pro-abortion organization. In the years before Roe V Wade, NARAL worked to legalize abortion in the states. Years later, after working to make abortion legal and performing or supervising over 60,000 abortions, Dr. Nathanson became pro-life. In this quote, he talks about how he and his fellow pro-choice activists got the media on their side:

“We, of course, stroked the media shamelessly. We played on them. We took them out to lunch. We wined them and dined them and gave them all sorts of exclusives…We were embarked on what looked like a historic crusade, a sweeping social revolution, and they loved it.”

Bernard N Nathanson, Featured Address, Missouri Citizens for Life Convention, 1981, Columbia, Missouri, May 2, 1981

Quoted in:  William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983)

Share on Facebook