The Atlantic on Dr. Kermit Gosnell

[Norrin Radd]

Defies description.

Not for the squeamish.

But a riveting read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

 

[HejiraHenry]

It's been interesting to watch the growing pressure from social media for the "Legacy Media" to get aboard on this story. The Washington Post says it's going to staff the trial now. AP has not gotten the memo.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

It's been interesting to watch the growing pressure from social media for the "Legacy Media" to get aboard on this story. The Washington Post says it's going to staff the trial now. AP has not gotten the memo.

Not sure it's too legitimately a "social media" thing. It seems to be very much a right wing media thing. Fox News had a big segment on "Why is the mainstream media refusing to cover this?!?" today, and it was the first time I'd seen Fox News address it. We started getting emails about it today, with the recurring theme of "why is the media mean to Rush Limbaugh but won't cover this?" The pressure seems to be very similar to the pressure to cover Obama's birth certificate.

By the way, the reason you won't see much coverage is that the story is ****ing horrifying, and can't adequately be told in a way that won't utterly drive away the audience. The implied suggestion that it's based on ideology is disingenuous at best.

 

[YGBFKM]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence, whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Let's assume your supposed deep, dark premise has anything to do with reality. If the MSM is all gaga for abortion rights, it should want to highlight this case, for it will be a cautionary tale about what will happen if abortion of all kinds are banned. And what kind of coverage do you want? 24 hours a day on CNN? Top 10 minutes of Nightly News? Cos hell, there's nothing going on in Congress right now or regarding North Korea that we should be paying notice to.

Indeed, the question of "why is someone crying for the hell to be covered out of this story?" can be said to have a political answer as well, if you wish to play that game.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence, whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

No, it's really not.

It's not "sensational" in any of the positive sense as far as media interest goes. It's just horrible, and sad, and disgusting, and just about anything else you can name.

And let me be clear: I'm a local TV news producer in Phoenix, about 3,000 miles from where this is happening. We are suddenly, as of about 10am today, getting hit with emails demanding to know why we are covering up this story. And the answer is, I don't run any **** like this and I have no reason to. It's not local and it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast.

I didn't cover Steubenville. Does that make me pro-rapist? I've largely avoided the Trayvon Martin case. Does that make me biased? If so, which way?

If I were in Philly, I'd have a reporter on this. If I were working in print I'd cover it because you can turn away from a story in print in a way you just can't do on TV. It's not local for me and it's a showkiller, so I'm not going there.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with my views on abortion, which are pretty mixed in the first place.

 

[Captain Obvious]

How long has FOX News been on the bandwagon? What about The Blaze?

 

[YGBFKM]

You know that's not how it would be received, dools, or, at the very least, you know that people on one side of this issue don't want to take the chance that it would not be. Under your scenario, the other side should be afraid of what you suggest happening. But it's not. We all know most people, regardless of their politics, would be horrified by this story. That's a human response. To ignore that is not disingenuous, it's flat-out dishonest.

Do you agree that certain stories are too horrifying to be covered? Do you not think the babies, women and families involved deserve for this story to be covered?

 

[YGBFKM]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence,
whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

No, it's really not.

It's not "sensational" in any of the positive sense as far as media interest goes. It's just horrible, and sad, and disgusting, and just about anything else you can name.

And let me be clear: I'm a local TV news producer in Phoenix, about 3,000 miles from where this is happening. We are suddenly, as of about 10am today, getting hit with emails
demanding to know why we are covering up this story. And the answer is, I don't run any **** like this and I have no reason to. It's not local and it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast.

I didn't cover Steubenville. Does that make me pro-rapist? I've largely avoided the Trayvon Martin case. Does that make me biased? If so, which way?

If I were in Philly, I'd have a reporter on this. If I were working in print I'd cover it because you can turn away from a story in print in a way you just can't do on TV. It's not local for me and it's a showkiller, so I'm not going there.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with my views on abortion, which are pretty mixed in the first place.

You work at a small station that only provides local news?

 

[PCLoadLetter]

How long has FOX News been on the bandwagon? What about The Blaze?

I don't watch it closely, but we have a big monitor on the newsroom wall with Fox News on it. I have never seen them cover the trial before today's discussion about how terrible it is that the "mainstream media" isn't covering the trial.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence,
whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

No, it's really not.

It's not "sensational" in any of the positive sense as far as media interest goes. It's just horrible, and sad, and disgusting, and just about anything else you can name.

And let me be clear: I'm a local TV news producer in Phoenix, about 3,000 miles from where this is happening. We are suddenly, as of about 10am today, getting hit with emails
demanding to know why we are covering up this story. And the answer is, I don't run any **** like this and I have no reason to. It's not local and it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast.

I didn't cover Steubenville. Does that make me pro-rapist? I've largely avoided the Trayvon Martin case. Does that make me biased? If so, which way?

If I were in Philly, I'd have a reporter on this. If I were working in print I'd cover it because you can turn away from a story in print in a way you just can't do on TV. It's not local for me and it's a showkiller, so I'm not going there.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with my views on abortion, which are pretty mixed in the first place.

You work at a small station that only provides local news?

No, I produce a newscast that isn't laden with local crime from other cities. This is a story that has no impact on people from my viewing in any way, other than being horror porn.

You asked Dools if the families involved don't deserve to have their story covered. What they deserve is a fair trial, and they're getting that. This guy doesn't go free if local stations in other markets don't cover the story.

 

[dooley_womack1]

You know that's not how it would be received, dools, or, at the very least, you know that people on one side of this issue don't want to take the chance that it would not be. Under your scenario, the other side should be afraid of what you suggest happening. But it's not. We all know most people, regardless of their politics, would be horrified by this story. That's a human response. To ignore that is not disingenuous, it's flat-out dishonest.

Do you agree that certain stories are too horrifying to be covered? Do you not think the babies, women and families involved deserve for this story to be covered?

Oh, it's horrifying. But I sure in the hell know how newspapers work (I'll trust PCLL knows a thing or 10 about TV), and hell, I'm sure you know about newspapers, too. I'm sure you can't really think there's a cabal at the major newspapers, headed by Scott Evil (Dr. Evil's salary got too high and he took the buyout), saying "We must not let the people know, hahahaha." You darn well know putting together the daily report is a mishmash of considerations, including story mix, what special packages your staffers have put together that you want to give play as your franchise, etc.

So I would never truly think there's some dark conspiracy, and you surely know enough to not really believe that, either.

 

[YGBFKM]

I don't think there's a conspiracy, but we both know enough about how the media actually works to realize this is the kind of story that plenty of people are more than happy not to deal with for a number of reasons. Among those is its political nature. Only a fool would think politics doesn't play a role here -- on both sides, but I'm more interested in the journalistic question PC brought up. Are there stories that are too horrifying to cover? If so, where is that line drawn? Why is that line drawn?

 

[printit]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence, whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

No, it's really not.

It's not "sensational" in any of the positive sense as far as media interest goes. It's just horrible, and sad, and disgusting, and just about anything else you can name.

And let me be clear: I'm a local TV news producer in Phoenix, about 3,000 miles from where this is happening. We are suddenly, as of about 10am today, getting hit with emails demanding to know why we are covering up this story. And the answer is, I don't run any **** like this and I have no reason to. It's not local and it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast.

I didn't cover Steubenville. Does that make me pro-rapist? I've largely avoided the Trayvon Martin case. Does that make me biased? If so, which way?

If I were in Philly, I'd have a reporter on this. If I were working in print I'd cover it because you can turn away from a story in print in a way you just can't do on TV. It's not local for me and it's a showkiller, so I'm not going there.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with my views on abortion, which are pretty mixed in the first place.

I agree with you completely about the fact that there is no local angle for your newscast and why that is a legitimate reason not to cover it. I have a question, though, and I'm not trolling, just generally curious. When you say, "it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast" does that mean you wouldn't cover this story if it was local? And, if it was local and you did cover it, why would you feel the need to whitewash anything?

 

[PCLoadLetter]

That's a cop-out, PC. While this is especially horrifying, the people who decry any claims of media bias are always quick to say that it's not about ideology, it's about sensationalism. This story is about as sensational as it gets. I agree that more coverage probably would drive away parts of the audience -- I can only take so much of it -- but the media is truly worthless and might as well give up any pretense of mattering if they are going to argue with a straight face that some stories are too horrifying to cover. Using that logic, why cover any violence, whether it be local crime or the horrors of war? There's only one reason why this story would be ignored.

No, it's really not.

It's not "sensational" in any of the positive sense as far as media interest goes. It's just horrible, and sad, and disgusting, and just about anything else you can name.

And let me be clear: I'm a local TV news producer in Phoenix, about 3,000 miles from where this is happening. We are suddenly, as of about 10am today, getting hit with emails demanding to know why we are covering up this story. And the answer is, I don't run any **** like this and I have no reason to. It's not local and it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast.

I didn't cover Steubenville. Does that make me pro-rapist? I've largely avoided the Trayvon Martin case. Does that make me biased? If so, which way?

If I were in Philly, I'd have a reporter on this. If I were working in print I'd cover it because you can turn away from a story in print in a way you just can't do on TV. It's not local for me and it's a showkiller, so I'm not going there.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with my views on abortion, which are pretty mixed in the first place.

I agree with you completely about the fact that there is no local angle for your newscast and why that is a legitimate reason not to cover it. I have a question, though, and I'm not trolling, just generally curious. When you say, "it's not a story I can cover properly without utterly whitewashing what the guy did, because "scissors in the baby's spinal cord" isn't appearing in my newscast" does that mean you wouldn't cover this story if it was local? And, if it was local and you did cover it, why would you feel the need to whitewash anything?

Yeah, that could probably use some clarifying.

The guys accused of doing things so horrible I'm absolutely not going to describe them in a newscast. I could say something like "performing barbaric late-term abortions," but even that really seems to soft-pedal what the guy's accused of. (Real-life example to clarify the point -- many, many years ago, there was a scandal in an elite military group, with video surfacing of hazing of new members that bordered on torture. It was pretty graphic and really damning to the group in question. My news director at the time insisted on doing the story... but editing out all of the bad stuff so we didn't disturb the viewers. The end result was, anyone who saw our story walked away thinking it was nothing because the hazing in the video looked like Cub Scout pranks. It was a huge disservice, and we would have been better off not doing the story at all.)

Now if it was local, yeah, I bite the bullet, put up a million disclaimers about what people are about to hear, and then tell the story as much as I can. Even at that, there are some details I'm just not going to use. That's ultimately misleading and I hate that, but I'm not describing some of the stuff this guy's accused of doing. I'd do it in print and I'd put it on the website, but it's not going on TV.

 

[YankeeFan]

By the way, the reason you won't see much coverage is that the story is ****ing horrifying, and can't adequately be told in a way that won't utterly drive away the audience.

Yet, Sandy Hook could be told -- had to be told. And, we have to change our laws as a result.

Gosnell killed more people than any school or movie theater shooter. And, his victims were even younger that those at Sandy Hook.

 

[YGBFKM]

To piggyback YF, anyone who would have said Sandy Hook was too horrifying to cover would rightfully have been shouted down as a partisan nutbag not worthy of being described as anything resembling a real journalist. If you are claiming the same thing in regard to this story, there is no difference.

 

[YankeeFan]

C'mon. Let's be honest. The media -- yes the media -- does not want us sympathizing with the victims here.

That would humanize them, and we can't humanize murdered babies who were meant to be aborted. It's simply not allowed.

If we humanize them, what's the next step?

 

[dooley_womack1]

By the way, the reason you won't see much coverage is that the story is ****ing horrifying, and can't adequately be told in a way that won't utterly drive away the audience.

Yet, Sandy Hook could be told -- had to be told. And, we have to change our laws as a result.

Gosnell killed more people than any school or movie theater shooter. And, his victims were even younger that those at Sandy Hook.

If you believe abortion is murder, that is. I guess this will be the new surrogate politics thread.

 

[YankeeFan]

By the way, the reason you won't see much coverage is that the story is ****ing horrifying, and can't adequately be told in a way that won't utterly drive away the audience.

Yet, Sandy Hook could be told -- had to be told. And, we have to change our laws as a result.

Gosnell killed more people than any school or movie theater shooter. And, his victims were even younger that those at Sandy Hook.

If you believe abortion is murder, that is. I guess this will be the new surrogate politics thread.

Have you followed this story at all?

He killed babies that were born alive. That's murder.

What do you think he's on trial for? (And yes, all of his victims were not babies, but most were.)