Abortion Doctor Trial Finally Gets National Media Attention

Whether you consider yourself "pro-life," "pro-choice" or somewhere in between regarding abortion, you're likely to be sickened by the details of the charges against Dr. Kermit Gosnell, now on trial in Philadelphia. He is a physician charged with regularly performing abortions on women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania and then murdering the sometimes viable, live infants delivered that way. The defense phase of his trial is slated to begin Monday.
Because our focus in this "In the News" section is on news bias and slanting, The Wired Word is not recounting the details of the charges, but they are included in the links below, most fully in the article from The Atlantic, "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story."
At this point, however, none of the charges, however difficult to contemplate, have been proven, so Gosnell should not be presumed guilty. What's more, this week, the judge in the case threw out some of the charges, while still leaving some others in place to be decided by the jury.
Gosnell's story has been widely covered by media within metropolitan Philadelphia, but until recently, the national news coverage has been spotty. As a result, many Americans were unaware of it. More intense coverage on the national level began after a few columnists pointed out how little reportage there'd been nationwide on this story -- a story likely to be of interest and concern more broadly than just in the Philadelphia area. Some critics even charged it was a "liberal media bias" that had downplayed the Gosnell news.
After the columnists noted the relative absence of coverage of Gosnell's trial, several journalists responded, some admitting that they should have reported it. For example, Megan McArdle, a special correspondent for Newsweek/The Daily Beast, who is herself pro-choice, wrote a column in which she sought to understand her own avoidance of the story. She said, "To start, it makes me ill. I haven't been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. ... But 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.'"
McArdle went on to acknowledge her own failure to write about the story and concluded, "What happened in Philadelphia should never happen again, and all of us -- not just the Philadelphia police -- should be asking how we make sure it doesn't. I don't know the answer to that yet, because I still don't understand what happened in Pennsylvania. But I'll be working to figure it out."
Other journalists have offered other reasons, including what one reporter called the "chaotic" way in which stories are chosen. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf writes, "There is, of course, no single explanation for why any news story unfolds one way instead of another. 'The media' is an abstraction. It encompasses TV, radio, print and digital; editors, reporters and bloggers; the Drudge Report, The New Yorker, USA Today and Feministing. Many of the factors that shape how a story is covered are seemingly random or just plain undiscoverable." He then described 14 different explanations he'd heard for why the Gosnell story hadn't gotten national coverage sooner.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Kermit Gosnell Defense Starts Monday in Philly Abortion Trial. Huffington Post
Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story. The Atlantic
Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial -- And Why I Should Have. The Daily Beast
Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror. USA Today
Politics Aside, the Gosnell Trial Deserves -- and Is Getting -- More Coverage. New York Times
14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell's Case Didn't Get More Media Attention. The Atlantic
Team Discussion
In the TWW team discussion of this topic, members mentioned how hard it is to avoid bias even when that is one's intention. For example, the editor said, "Here at The Wired Word, we work hard to keep the 'In the News' section of our lesson objective and without bias. Yet we are aware that we cannot escape 'slanting' the lesson in the sense that simply by choosing to use one news story instead of another in TWW, we are stepping out of the 'objective' box to a degree. Even the order in which we arrange the questions and whether we put them in 'The Big Questions' section or in the 'For Further Discussion' section can slant a lesson, even when we intend no slant."
Expanding the topic, one team member said, "There is good reason to believe that various forms of bias (e.g., expectation bias and confirmation bias) significantly influence how a person looks at events -- at any new information. That applies to reporters and news editors as well. I've seen several analyses that the effect is magnified when there is not a diversity of biases present ...."
That team member cited a couple of examples of bias related to reporting about violence:
• News reports that downplay (or often ignore) Islamic radicalism as a motivation for terrorists. "Ignoring the motivation makes it less easy to understand and, possibly, to reduce the number of future attacks," the team member said.
• Rhetoric that seeks to demonize and dehumanize political opposition by immediately suggesting that every act of violence is caused by people associated with the political opposition.
Another team member commented that many of us who teach or preach in church probably subconsciously slant our lessons or sermons just by choosing which Bible verses we will or won't talk about.
Yet another team member pointed out that in churches that follow a lectionary (a list of Scripture readings set by an ecumenical or denominational committee to be used in worship), large chunks of the Bible are never read in services because they are not included in the lectionary. For those worshipers who don't read the rest of the Bible for themselves, the Scripture is reduced to just the lectionary-approved texts.
For example, although the first few verses of Psalm 137 are often included ("By the waters of Babylon -- there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion ..."), the final verse is not ("Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!").
The Big Questions
1. When you are forming your opinion about some matter in the public culture, to what degree do you consciously try to hear from people on both sides of the issue? What helps you decide whether either view is right? Is it a good idea to listen to differing views on biblical interpretation? Explain your answer.
2. When have you been aware that you were "steering" someone to a desired conclusion by giving a lopsided report of some conversation, sermon, news story or event? How did you justify your decision to do so?
3. What kinds of questions can you consider when hearing a news report or someone's opinion to help you get past any bias -- unintended or otherwise -- in the report or opinion?
4. Can listening to one side only of a cultural, political or religious debate ever lead you to unintentionally "bear false witness"? Can it ever not lead to bearing false witness?
5. How important is certainty in leading a Christian life? Assuming certainty is not required in all things, what makes a topic something in which certainty is required? How should one deal with varying degrees of uncertainty?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Numbers 23:13
So Balak said to him, "Come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only part of them, and shall not see them all; then curse them for me from there." (For context, read 22:41--23:26.)
The people of Israel were in the wilderness, nearing the end of their migration from Egypt to Canaan after years of slavery in Egypt. On the way, they had fought successfully against the Amorites and now had a reputation as a fierce and dangerous horde. And their numbers were staggering. Exodus says that when they left Egypt, they numbered 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37), plus women and children. So when this enormous body of Israelites camped on the plains of Moab, the people who lived in that region had every reason to be concerned.
Moab's king, Balak, took one look at this encampment stretched out on the plain and decided to do something proactive to give the Moabites an edge in case conflict ensued. Balak sent for a local soothsayer by the name of Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel. Balaam sent back word that God had already told him that Israel was blessed, but Balak insisted that Balaam come anyway. When the soothsayer arrived, the king took him to a high place where he could look out over the vast multitude of Israel, and instructed him to pronounce his curse. Balaam spoke, but instead of a curse, a blessing on Israel flowed out of his mouth (23:7-10).
King Balak was furious, but not ready to give up. He took Balaam to another location where he'd be able to see only a portion of the Israelite nation. From the new spot, Balaam spoke, but once again, a blessing rolled out of his mouth (23:18-24).
King Balak might come off as a fool for thinking that if he could just limit the soothsayer's sight, the curse would be forthcoming, as if to say. "Let's look at only this part and pretend that's all that matters." But we can understand why he might try it. Telling less than the whole truth or conveniently omitting the parts that suggest a different conclusion have long proven effective at misleading audiences.
Questions: When have you consciously ignored some information so as not to upset an accepted conclusion? Do you resent those who keep bringing up a topic you would rather not discuss? Have you discerned resentment when you insisted on bringing up a topic no one seemed to want to address?
1 Kings 12:8
But [Rehoboam] disregarded the advice that the older men gave him, and consulted with the young men who had grown up with him and now attended him. (For context, read 12:1-19.)
Kings Saul, David and Solomon had successively ruled over the united tribes of Israel. After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam was to take the throne, but at that point, the northern tribes, with a man named Jeroboam as their spokesman, asked if Rehoboam would lighten the hard demands Solomon had imposed on them. Before answering, Rehoboam sought advice from two groups: the older men who had counseled his father and the young men who had grown up with him.
The older men advised Rehoboam to "be a servant to this people today and serve them, and speak good words to them" (v. 7). But, as the verse above reports, Rehoboam "disregarded" that advice. The younger men advised him to make the load on the people even heavier, which is what Rehoboam announced he would do. This appears to be a case of continuing to ask for advice until receiving some that coincides with one's bias -- with what one really wanted to do anyway.
In Rehoboam's case, the outcome was disastrous. The 10 northern tribes promptly seceded from the kingdom, setting up a new nation under Jeroboam. Rehoboam ended up with only two tribes under his rule. The Israelite people remained as two kingdoms for more than 200 years and never did regain independent status as a nation until, possibly, modern Israel was formed in the 20th century A.D. (Some theologians deny any link between modern Israel and ancient Israel/Judea. Their arguments are good, but not conclusive.)
Questions: What additional dangers do you see in seeking confirmation of one's biases? How tempting is it to listen only to those who already agree with you? How many sources do you have for news? Do they all share the same slant? How do you feel when your advice or the considered advice of others is ignored?
Proverbs 18:17
The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and cross-examines. (No context needed.)
This proverb notes the problem of only hearing one side of an argument. When it comes to news reporting, a situation in which most of the reporters and editors have the same leaning results in there being only one side that "states a case," so others responding to it often have only the edited version and no chance to examine the original case.
Questions: Have you ever reached a conclusion after listening to only one side? Has listening to another side ever made a difference? How do you seek to become someone who weighs the various sides of an issue before making a decision?
Mark 9:23-24
Jesus said to him, "If you are able! -- All things can be done for the one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (For context, read 9:14-29.)
Knowing that our sources of knowledge about news items can be biased or misleading, we cannot always be certain that the story as we have heard it is entirely accurate. The Bible verse above shows that even in the area of faith, there is room for uncertainty: "I believe; help my unbelief!" Even this uncertain faith was sufficient for Jesus to heal the man's son.
Questions: In what ways is uncertainty a helpful tool in ascertaining the truth? In what ways might it be a hindrance? Does it feel like uncertainty is almost the default setting? How do you react toward someone who always seems to have the "right" answer and does not seem to experience uncertainty?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (For context, read 3:10-17.)
Admittedly, at the time Paul wrote these words to Timothy, the "all scripture" he had in mind was limited essentially to the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Old Testament. That's because the New Testament had not yet been written. But once it was written and established by the church as Scripture also, it's likely that Paul would have included it in this statement.
Questions: Does all Scripture that "is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" include the "begats" (the listing of lines of descent in the early chapters of Genesis)? How about the minutiae of priestly duties in Leviticus? What helpful things have you learned from reading parts of the Bible that are usually NOT read in worship services? What is the least helpful verse or passage you have heard? What is the most helpful?
For Further Discussion
1. Read the following two column excerpts side by side, and then talk about what conclusions you draw and why. The first is from Kirsten Powers, writing in USA Today on April 11. The second is from Margaret Sullivan, writing in The New York Times on April 15.
Powers: "A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.
    "The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.
    "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut.
    "You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life.' It's about basic human rights.
    "The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace."
Sullivan: "The behavior of news organizations often owes more to chaos theory than conspiracy theory. I don't think that editors and reporters got together and decided not to give the Gosnell trial a lot of attention because it would highlight the evils of abortion.
    "I do think that it wasn't on their radar screen -- and that it should have been. The murders of seven newborn babies, done so horrifically, would be no ordinary crime. Any suggestion, including mine on Friday [in a previous column], that this is just another murder trial is a miscalculation. And it's certainly possible that journalists who were more in touch with conservative voices and causes would have picked up on the importance of this trial sooner.
    "Judged on news value alone, the Gosnell trial deserves more coverage than it's had, in The Times and elsewhere.
    "Those who have called for more attention to this grisly and disturbing trial are right. But some of them -- because of their accusations of politics overcoming news judgment -- are right for the wrong reasons."
2. What is the likely effect of a "diversity of biases" present in a given group on the conclusions that group draws?
3. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said, "All truths are half-truths." Do you agree? Why or why not?
4. Do you think a person who can be described by the expression "often wrong but seldom uncertain" would be fun to be around? Why or why not?
5. Name a story in recent memory that flew under the radar, that you only heard about by accident long after it happened. Name a story that really mattered to you, that you followed closely, and which no one else seemed to notice, or even care about.
6. Does it seem as if sometimes media outlets focus on a story that you wish to ignore, or think is unimportant? Name instances. How important is it for someone to point our attention to unpleasant events?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to try to recognize our biases, and also to vow to approach news reporting from all sources -- including those most in tune with our sympathies -- with enough skepticism to understand that we may not be hearing the whole story.

Closing Prayer
Help us, O Lord, to use the intellect and skills you have given us to be thoughtful and intentional followers of Jesus. In his name we pray. Amen.