Glenn “InstaPundit” Reynolds reminds us in a USA Today column that media bias extends beyond the way in which reporters cover stories.
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.” …
… Yes. So why wasn’t it news? Pro-choice writer Megan McArdle of The Daily Beast notes 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.’ “
It was fine to dwell at length on the Newtown, Conn., shootings, because those could be blamed on the evil NRA. But writing about these dead innocents might be a political liability instead of a political asset. It might have been awkward for President Obama. …
… In response some are noting that conservative media outlets like the Weekly Standard weren’t exactly providing page-one coverage, and there’s some truth to that. The abortion issue, I suspect, is upsetting enough to most everyone that there’s a strong tendency to shy away, even when the subjects are, in fact, front-page-worthy. But this case should be a reminder that shying away from big stories isn’t what journalism is supposed to be about.
And it’s also reminder that media bias exists not only in how the press covers stories, but in the choice of stories to cover and, in particular, the choice of stories not to cover. Bear that in mind, in the future. And hope that, at a crucial moment, another column from the right person will break the silence.
