Salon.com shouts “Look, Squirrel!” to deflect #Gosnell outrage

As noted yesterday, the widespread attention to the mainstream media’s news blackout on the Kermit Gosnell trial evoked a pushback at Salon.com with the claim that “feminist” writers had written about the horrors, and therefore according to Irin Carmon, There is no Gosnell coverup.

That gave rise to pushback no. 2 by Alex Seitz-Wald  —  On Gosnell, where were conservatives before this week?

Those are straw man arguments and non-sequiturs.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that “feminist” writers did write about Gosnell and that conservatives did not, that would not change the fact that the mainstream media outlets have almost completely ignored the trial.

As documented here, other than a local NBC station and a few passing articles in the national media, the trial and gruesome testimony have not received even a tiny fraction of the national mainstream media coverage that every other mass murder trial gets, or even many single murder trials.  Mainstream media outlets consciously refuse to cover the trial, Detroit Free Press rebuffs reader demand to cover Gosnell butchery.

So even if the Salon.com writers are right in what they say, they are wrong on the issue of a mainstream media news blackout.

But the Salon.com writers had another dodge in their writing — the notion that “feminist” writers widely wrote about Gosnell or that conservatives ignored Gosnell.  The links provided in the Carmon article prove only that a small number of “feminist” writers wrote about Gosnell, but primarily out of a concern to protect abortion rights in the face of pro-life criticism of Gosnell.

Here is each link cited in the Carmon article, with a quick synopsis or quote from the linked articles, all of which are from 2011 at or about the time the Grand Jury report was released (please do read the entire articles):

There you go, that’s the proof cited to show there is no coverup.

As to the Seitz-Wald criticism of the lack of conservative coverage, that also is a dodge.

I, for one, was not really aware of Gosnell until recently precisely because of the lack of national media coverage.  The virtual news blackout since 2011 had the effect of keeping the problem relatively quiet until the trial testimony was revealed and spread by pro-life bloggers and twitterers.  But once the facts became know, we reacted as we should have in demanding more mainstream news coverage — unlike Salon.com and the rest of the left-blogosphere.

Compare national media coverage to OJ, Dahmer, Newtown, etc.  No one claims that there has been no coverage whatsoever, but the contrast is stark.  So stark that The Washington Post has issued an apology, or sorts: Washington Post pledges Gosnell coverage.

Why did Salon.com engage in this dodge, this attempt to shout “Look, Squirrel!” in the midst of growing Twitter outrage over the lack of mainstream media coverage of the Gosnell trial and the testimony?

For the same reason a few “feminist” writers wrote about the case back in 2011 — to protect abortion rights and to present Gosnell as an outlier, the exception which proves the pro-choice rule.

Why did and do pro-life writers, as well as Kirsten Powers and some others, write about the Gosnell trial and demand news coverage? To protect the babies… and the women.

Tags: Abortion, Media Bias

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY