PP ties

[pdudgeon]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-mainstream-media-protect-planned-parenthood?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: CrisisMagazine (Crisis Magazine)

Conservatives and pro-life activists have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and theIndianapolis Star, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the Washington Post for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

 

[brinny]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-mainstream-media-protect-planned-parenthood?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: CrisisMagazine (Crisis Magazine)

Conservatives and pro-life activists have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and theIndianapolis Star, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the Washington Post for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

Thank you.

 

[mark46]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-mainstream-media-protect-planned-parenthood?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: CrisisMagazine (Crisis Magazine)

Conservatives and pro-life activists have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and theIndianapolis Star, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the Washington Post for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

So, your suggestion is that the people of the media should NOT donate to the charities of their cholce?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

So, your suggestion is that the people of the media should NOT donate to the charities of their cholce?

>PP
>Charity

Pick one.

 

[Michie]

Charity!!!

>PP
>Charity

Pick one.

 

[grasping the after wind]

So, your suggestion is that the people of the media should NOT donate to the charities of their cholce?

I think the suggestion is that if one wants to be a journalist one ought to report on everything and not just things that are done by those you do not support. If news organizations want to contribute to an abortion mill they are legally entitled to do so but if that abortion mill is caught on tape selling body parts they need to report on it.

 

[mark46]

OK, I'll aask two further questions.

1) Should the media be required to NOT donate to organizations to which they wish?

2) Is Planned Parenthood a charity or non-profit under federal law?

 

[grasping the after wind]

OK, I'll aask two further questions.

1) Should the media be required to NOT donate to organizations to which they wish?

The media should not be required to refrain from anything. Especially reporting the facts. they do seem to want to refrain on their own in this case.

 

[grasping the after wind]

2) Is Planned Parenthood a charity or non-profit under federal law?

I would say a non profit.Though i do not know to what depths of depravity the federal government has sunk in defining something that hacs nothing to do with neighborly love as a charity. Then again if one is selling something that was procured at no cost from the original owner and making a profit on it how can one claim to be a non profit?

 

[pdudgeon]

OK, I'll ask two further questions.

1) Should the media be required to NOT donate to organizations to which they wish?

2) Is Planned Parenthood a charity or non-profit under federal law?

1. i think the law is that if a company has a conflict of interest, that they are required to make that conflict public as a part of any story that they cover.
So if they choose not to cover a story in order not to reveal a conflict of interest, they are free to do so.
And likewise other media are free to expose that information along with the fact that the same information was withheld by other companies.

The problem comes when the media company's conflicts of interest and subsequent decision to knowingly withhold information from the public that could affect the lives of that public, come into conflict with the media company's responsibility to report news and information (in a timely and responsible manner) that is vital to the well being of their viewers.

A responsible company would choose to recognize the welfare of their viewers, and act accordingly.
In this case it would be very easy for them to cease their support of PP, and then do a news story on them, while also including the fact that the news company had recently dropped it's previous support of PP. That would be a win-win situation.

2. neither that i know of. if you can supply information on that topic, please do so.

 

[MikeK]

I don't understand what was supposedly newsworthy about the story. It doesn't much matter to me how PP disposes of human waste. That they commit abortions is an outrage, but the rest? There's way more important things for the national news to focus on.

 

[mark46]

1. i think the law is that if a company has a conflict of interest, that they are required to make that conflict public as a part of any story that they cover.
[0/QUOTE]

What????? Please point to this law.

You really think that the First Amendment has been abolished? IMHO, in the US, the media is free to publish anything it wishes, unless it violates laws of libel, slander, inciting to riot, and perhaps directing other to commit a crime (conspiracy before the fact).

 

[frenchdefense]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-mainstream-media-protect-planned-parenthood?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed: CrisisMagazine (Crisis Magazine)

Conservatives and pro-life activists have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and theIndianapolis Star, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the Washington Post for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

Here's the problem:

There's no coverage because there's no story

and the only controversy has to do with the outfit that surreptitiously recorded to videos.
And, seriously, those guys should be counting there blessings that one on is looking at them.

Look, whether you like it or not:

> Nobody is making any money on any of this.
> No laws are being broken
> This is all being done above board and with everyone involved knowledge and consent.
and
>Everybody does it because researches need the tissue.

Even the saintly Dr Ben Carson has used fetal tissue for his research.

You have to get over this and move on because you'll never get anywhere with the whole abortion thing trying to make this dog hunt.

sorry about that.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I don't understand what was supposedly newsworthy about the story. It doesn't much matter to me how PP disposes of human waste. That they commit abortions is an outrage, but the rest? There's way more important things for the national news to focus on.

So it wouldn't bother you if those who have been born are sold for research or dumped in garbage cans at death? It doesn't matter how dead people are disposed of? Can we just start doing whatever we want with dead bodies, then?

 

[MikeK]

So it wouldn't bother you if those who have been born are sold for research or dumped in garbage cans at death?

It would bother me an incalculable fraction of how much their (presumably) preventable deaths did.

It doesn't matter how dead people are disposed of?

It does, the deceased should be treated with the dignity due them. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with bodies being donated to science, given up for "parts", buried at sea for fish and seaworms to dine on, buried for worms to eat, parts to be incinerated with other waste, etc.

Can we just start doing whatever we want with dead bodies, then?

Are you asking my permission? Check your local laws. I've had surgeries and I'm glad that the Med students that eventually became Surgeons had cadavers to practice on.

Abortion bothers me a great deal. That the dead are to be treated with dignity is important, but not even on the same scale.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

It would bother me an incalculable fraction of how much their (presumably) preventable deaths did.



It does, the deceased should be treated with the dignity due them. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with bodies being donated to science, given up for "parts", buried at sea for fish and seaborne to dine on, buried for worms to eat, parts to be incinerated with other waste, etc.



Are you asking my permission? Check your local laws. I've had surgeries and I'm glad that the Med students that eventually became Surgeons had cadavers to practice on.

Abortion bothers me a great deal. That the dead are to be treated with dignity is important, but not even on the same scale.

On the one hand you say the dead should be treated with dignity, while on the other you say you don't care about how PP disposes of babies. Which is it?

 

[MikeK]

On the one hand you say the dead should be treated with dignity, while on the other you say you don't care about how PP disposes of babies. Which is it?

Did you read my post? It is both. The dead should be treated with dignity, but to do otherwise is such a small sliver of the atrocity that abortion is (and it is possible to use the dead for research in a dignified manner) that it hardly warrants the nation's attention. Two years ago there was a "scandal" regarding aborted babies being incinerated with other human waste in a hospital. Every day, loved babies who are miscarried are flushed down toilets or thrown in the garbage. Some get funerals and are buried in cemeteries - the vast majority are not.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Did you read my post? It is both. The dead should be treated with dignity, but to do otherwise is such a small sliver of the atrocity that abortion is (and it is possible to use the dead for research in a dignified manner) that it hardly warrants the nation's attention. Two years ago there was a "scandal" regarding aborted babies being incinerated with other human waste in a hospital. Every day, loved babies who are miscarried are flushed down toilets or thrown in the garbage. Some get funerals and are buried in cemeteries - the vast majority are not.

Yeah, I read this above, posted by you: "It doesn't much matter to me how PP disposes of human waste."

Reading that I see you call the babies waste and say you don't really care how they're disposed of. Maybe you and I have different definitions of dignity and contradiction. Because then you say...

"That the dead are to be treated with dignity is important, but not even on the same scale."

So, I mean, which is it?

 

[MikeK]

Yeah, I read this above, posted by you: "It doesn't much matter to me how PP disposes of human waste."

Right, because the abortion itself bothers me so much.

Reading that I see you call the babies waste and say you don't really care how they're disposed of. Maybe you and I have different definitions of dignity and contradiction. Because then you say...

I care, but not compared to how much I care that they were aborted.

"That the dead are to be treated with dignity is important, but not even on the same scale."

So, I mean, which is it?

It is that the dead are to be treated with dignity is important, but that is not even on the same scale as abortion.

Given a rage scale where 100 is abortion, how upset are you that PP isn't always as thoughtful with cadavers as you'd like them to be? The answer is a number. How upset would it make you if a mother flushed her spontaniously aborted child down the toulet, or threw it in the trash? How upset are you when dead persons' bodies are cut up with organs sent to various labs for research?

 

[Michie]

I think the fear people have about these remains is that they are profitable which certainly does not give people that profit off these remains any incentive to encourage anything else but abortion. It makes the industry even more profitable than it already is.