The Washington Post ignored the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell until pro-life advocates raised such a ruckus it was forced to acknowledge it. Now the newspaper that acts as a frequent apologist for the pro-abortion movement is blaming conservative news outlets with a pro-life editorial stance for not covering it.
The only problem is the Post has its facts wrong. It’s so wrong the Post may deserve a couple of Pinocchios or more, as it is famous for giving to politicos who bend the truth.
As the newspaper claims:
The charge of liberal media bias is perhaps undercut by the fact that a number of conservative media outlets — and conservative leaders — overlooked the story, too, until a flood of tweets and commentaries about it began late last week.
The Weekly Standard and the National Review, two leading conservative magazines, for example, hadn’t published anything on the trial, according to a search of the Nexis database. The New York Post’s conservative editorial board has written one commentary — an editorial lamenting the lack of coverage, which, although it doesn’t mention it, includes its own paper. The Washington Times has published five staff-written articles and guest commentaries on the matter, all focusing on the absence of press coverage.
But Jim Geraghty of National Review destroys the Post’s argument, saying it only examined print coverage and not its extensive online coverage.
Here it comes: the mainstream media will claim that their critics on the Right are hypocrites, because conservative media outlets weren’t really covering the “house of horrors” of late-term abortionist/alleged mass murderer Kermit Gosnell, either.
This morning, the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi writes: “The Weekly Standard and the National Review, two leading conservative magazines, for example, hadn’t published anything on the trial, according to a search of the Nexis database.”
Notice the careful wording on that accusation. Of course, several of my colleagues wrote about the charges against Gosnell before the trial. (The opening statements in Gosnell’s trial began March 18.)
And if I’m reading Farhi correctly, he’s only looking at the print magazines, not the online versions – which, as we all know, generate a lot more material, day in and day out, than the print versions of our magazines.
Anyway, a quick look through NRO’s archives:
Michelle Malkin, back on January 21, 2011:
In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistleblowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way — until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s “choice.”
As I was leaving Fox News last night, I glanced up at the monitor and caught Juan Williams expressing mystification to Sean Hannity as to why Republicans in Congress were wasting the country’s time on a “little thing” like abortion.
Gee, I dunno. Maybe it’s something to do with a mass murderer in Pennsylvania, or Planned Parenthood clinics facilitating the sex trafficking of minors. From the Office of the District Attorney in Philadelphia:
Viable babies were born*. Gosnell killed them by plunging scissors into their spinal cords. He taught his staff to do the same.
This is a remarkable moment in American life: A man is killing actual living, gurgling, bouncing babies on an industrial scale – and it barely makes the papers.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Here’s Rich Lowry, Feb. 4, 2011:
The nightmarish case of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the sting video of a counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic cooperating with a supposed pimp show the dignity of women is decidedly secondary. The 261-page grand-jury report in the Gosnell case could have been written by Stephen King. Gosnell’s gruesome operation was, on its own terms, highly efficient. During the day, his assistants administered labor-inducing drugs to pregnant women, overwhelmingly poor minorities. Then the good doctor showed up in the evening. On some women, he performed traditional abortions, occasionally butchering them in the process. Other women had delivered babies before he arrived. Here, he performed post-birth abortions–
-and I’m going to cut if off here, lest you lose your breakfast all over your keyboard. Yeah, it’s awful.