Avoiding the facts about partial-birth abortion

Submitted on November 07, 2003

Send to friendAccording to a study by the Media Research Center on "major news stories distorted or neglected," the "Big Three" news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) flunk the reality test on their news reports about partial-birth abortion. The study analyzed 217 stories aired by those networks between 1995 and 2003 where the issue of partial-birth abortion was mentioned. Over that eight-year period the medical basics of the procedure have been shared with Big Three audiences a total of 18 times. Many Catholics have learned about the horrible procedure of partial-birth abortion in their Catholic newspapers and other pro-life guides. In partial-birth abortion a living baby is pulled feet first out of the womb, the base of the skull is punctured with a surgical instrument and the brain is removed with a powerful suction machine, so the skull is collapsed and the corpse can be removed for disposal. Partial-birth abortion has been a legislative matter for eight years, with the first vote on Nov. 1, 1995. But the starting point of the debate — what is partial-birth abortion? — is rarely mentioned on broadcast news. The Media Research Center www.mediaresearch.org found that of the 18 stories on ABC, CBS and NBC that included descriptions of the procedure, 15 of those descriptions occurred before 1998. Including broadcasts in October of this year, when the partial-birth abortion ban was passed (again), Big Three reporters have described the procedure only three times in the last five years — all of them on CBS. The 199 stories about this horrendous procedure never told listeners what the procedure entails. ABC described the procedure most often: 10 times between 1995 and 1998. CBS was next with six such descriptions and NBC described it only two times in eight years. One of the total of 18 was on a morning broadcast in 1995, when CBS let U.S. Rep. Charles Canady describe it. All the others were evening newscasts, magazine, late night and Sunday news programs. While journalists need not give the full description of an issue in every report, good journalists would not skip the fundamental facts in nine out of 10 stories. Viewers have reason to question the purpose for this "self-censorship" on the part of the major networks. Though the partial-birth abortion procedure is grotesque and is likely to jar the sensitivities of many who hear about it, the kinds of stories and accounts that routinely are represented on TV news often contain graphic images and are shared on these same broadcasts. It seems viewers have been spared the description of partial-birth abortion for other reasons. Indeed a 1995 survey of elite journalists found that 97 percent describe themselves as "pro choice," and 84 percent said they held this view strongly. Audiences and sponsors should decide whether these journalists’ personal views unduly influence their responsible reporting of the news. The new ban on partial-birth abortion — which will certainly be challenged now in the courts — is long overdue, and all people of faith and conscience should pray that it will prevail as a first step in turning back the tragedy of abortion in our country and world. If good men and women are told the truth about the dignity of human life and come to discover the harsh reality about these crimes, then hearts will change. Let us each take responsibility for making sure the truth is told.