Doug Simpson's story for the Associated Press covering Louisiana's ban on partial birth abortion is, by MSM standards anyhow, okay. Nevertheless, there are a few things that a competent, fair-minded editor would certainly have red-lined. Let's take a look.Point 1) Simpson's opening: Louisiana became the first American state Friday to outlaw a controversial abortion procedure that involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.
Reporters should be careful of how powerfully influential are their individual adjectives and adverbs. Thus, though I can overlook Mr. Simpson's unnecessary use of "American" to describe what the reader knows is an American state, I will ask why he refers to the procedure as "controversial"? Sure, almost all other reporters do, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans want partial birth abortion banned. The word "controversy" normally applies to issues on which there are sharp, but relatively even, disagreement among the parties. But with partial-birth abortion, what actual "controversy" exists is supplied by the zealotry for any and all abortions that is displayed by only an elite few.
Point 2) A larger issue, of course, is why the preborn child targeted for death is so routinely de-humanized by the term "fetus." In most MSM stories about expectant motherhood, the accurate and meaningful word "baby" is used. Why then, when the story topic is abortion, do reporters and editors automatically change words on us?
Indeed, why do they ignore the elephant in the garden and not tell the reader exactly why so many people oppose abortion? It is because human beings begin at conception and are created in the image of God. It is because the victims of abortion have beating hearts and little fingers and toes. It is because abortion is vicious, unnecessary and unnatural in the extreme. It is because murder is wrong.
No, when mainstream reporters overlook these basics and instead dish up mere labels, scientific inaccuracy, and distorted language in their "coverage" of abortion, they are not only being poor journalists, but they are (sometimes quite consciously) shilling for the abortion industry itself.
Point 3) And this still concerns Mr. Simpson's opening sentence. Removing a "fetus intact from a woman's uterus" means a little guy or girl has just had a birthday. The subsequent barbarism of crushing that baby's skull doesn't "complete" the abortion. It is the abortion.
Point 4) Mr. Simpson writes: Anti-abortion activists call the procedure "partial-birth abortion;" surgeons and abortion rights activists call it "dilation and extraction."
Again, the fair-minded editor would certainly have made the reporter start over with that sentence. For notice how the opposition is not merely between anti-abortion and abortion rights activists (I won't even bother to get into the MSM's failure to use "pro-life" and "pro-abortion"); the reporter has added surgeons to the defenders of partial-birth abortion. Not some surgeons. Not surgeons, like Leroy Carhart, who make huge amounts of money by killing babies through this grisly procedure. But just surgeons.
Mr. Simpson is way, way off here as the polls, the medical practice, and the testimony before Congress and the Supreme Court clearly show that the majority of surgeons are against partial-birth abortions. If the reporter has to drop in "surgeons" on one side, he should be accurate about which side they go on!
Point 5) In this next sentence (and the last I'll examine), Mr. Simpson not only runs on and on, but he runs right out of any pretense of fairness whatsoever. Unlike in many developed countries, where abortion is considered a medical procedure beyond the reach of politics, it remains among the most politically sensitive subjects in the United States, and is likely to be a hotly debated issue through the campaign to the November 2008 U.S. presidential election, especially by conservative Republicans.
Obviously, the reader is supposed to see development (read enlightenment, intelligence, progress, etc.) as consistent with abortion being a "medical procedure beyond the reach of politics." But Mr. Simpson neglects two quite crucial things in this belief. One is that, unlike Europe, the United States hasn't completely forgotten its Christian heritage and morality. Therefore, something like murdering innocent, defenseless, and immeasurably precious children continues to break the hearts of (if the polls be correct) most Americans. And secondly, Mr. Simpson; we have a democracy here. We're supposed to do politics. And what is more deserving of our political activity than the most profound of our moral sensibilities?
Finally, why does Mr. Simpson suggest that the hot debate coming over abortion will be "especially by conservative Republicans?" Goodness. Hasn't the fellow ever listened to the feminists rage and threaten? Hasn't he heard the profane rantings of pro-abortion starlets and singers who compare pro-lifers with Nazis and terrorists? Hasn't he ever watched Hillary or Barack pander to the extremism of Planned Parenthood or NARAL?
No, our fair-minded editor, if he or she existed, would send Mr. Simpson back to his desk to re-write his story, one without the tilt and omissions. Then again, maybe our fair-minded editor would simply send another more professional and balanced reporter, if he or she existed, to begin with.