Ruining “good abortion journalism”

By Dave Andrusko

The New York Times will always produce "good abortion journalism," as defined by Media Matters

The New York Times will always produce “good abortion journalism,” as defined by Media Matters

Earlier today we posted about a “speakout” by the “1 in 3” crowd, the latest attempt to “destigmatize” abortion.

And, wouldn’t you know it, this afternoon the extremist pro-abortion “Media Matters” (one of the many organizations funded by billionaire George Soros’s money) ran a piece under the bizarre headline, “Abortion Stigma Is Ruining Good Abortion Journalism.”

“Good abortion journalism”? Yikes!

What Carlos Maza is arguing is that ”news coverage of abortion stories continues to be plagued by negative and damaging stereotypes about the procedure,” stereotypes which “are the product of ‘abortion stigma.’” And this, he concludes, “pose[s] a real threat to accurate abortion coverage.”

Maza defines abortion stigma as “the “shared understanding” that “abortion is morally wrong or socially unacceptable. It’s everywhere, it’s everywhere, according to Maza, showing “up in all facets of popular culture. But it’s especially dangerous when it taints news coverage of abortion stories.”

Real quickly what is the “taint”? Referring to abortion “as sickening, violent, and unethical”–that’s the province of the “right wing media.” That’s bad enough to Mr. Maza but the real culprit is elsewhere. “Abortion stigma”

also shows up in mainstream news reporting, often in subtle ways. Whether it’s using misleading b-roll footage of babies and extremely pregnant women during abortion segments, or parroting conservative talking points about medical safety while discussing extreme efforts to regulate abortion clinics, media framing of abortion debates often reinforces the idea that abortion is risky cruel, and taboo.

Well, what can we say about that?

For starters, it reminds you of the assault on Newsweek which ran a long, 99.9% pro-abortion story but made the unforgivable sin of having an ultrasound of a baby roughly 10-13 weeks old on the cover. The one-sided coverage is never, ever enough.

“Talking points”? How about the pro-abortion talking point that abortion is safer than a trip to the local laundromat? Or that abortion always and forever is “The best decision I ever made”? Or that by definition there can never be a negative physical, psychological, or emotional aftermath following an abortion? Or if there is, it’s a manifestation of a “pre-existing” condition in the now post-abortive woman.

Mr. Maza and his friends at organizations like 1 in 3 and Planned Parenthood and NARAL may not know it but they have heir own “shared understanding.” The problem is it bears no relationship to what really takes place in an abortion and afterwards.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/dave