• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal media ignores mass murderer

That's right, murdering babies, not fetuses. So why would the media care about covering up the story of a murderer, especially after they all reported on it when it first happened?

There is a lot of evidence out there why they care. Familiarize yourself with whats going on, even on this thread, and then there can be discussion.
 
why has the executive editor of the washington post never heard of dr gosnell?

Capture.webp

Seems to me like they might have heard of it. Sorry that it got bumped down the list by terrorists.
 
That's right, murdering babies, not fetuses. So why would the media care about covering up the story of a murderer, especially after they all reported on it when it first happened?

It is being reported on. The problem Cons are having is that WaPo is not stoking their outrage.
 
yesterday:

Martin Baron, The Post’s executive editor, offers a more mundane rationale for the newspaper’s lack of coverage: He wasn’t aware of the story until Thursday night, when readers began e-mailing him about it.

link above
 
wapo this morning:

Gosnell himself seemed confused, when he was charged with so many counts of murder, as to how that could be. Because even at that point, he didn’t appear to see the children he’s accused of beheading as people.

Planned Parenthood’s [Alisa LaPolt] Snow was similarly obtuse, either willfully or out of habit, in testifying against a Florida bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Her answer was a familiar one: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”

Though it pains me to say so, that’s the same stand Barack Obama effectively took when he voted against a similar Illinois bill — even after the addition of a “neutrality clause” spelling out that the bill would have no bearing on the legal status of the (you say fetus, I say unborn child) at any point prior to delivery, and thus could not be used to outlaw abortion.

Recently, MSNBC host Melissa Harris mocked those who see a fertilized egg as a fully human person: “I get,” she said, “that that’s a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”

But I wish she and those who agree with her also got this: To insist that a baby born at 30 weeks, as one of Gosnell’s victims was, only qualifies as a person if his mom decides to keep him is also “a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”

Why Kermit Gosnell hasn’t been on Page One
 
There is a lot of evidence out there why they care. Familiarize yourself with whats going on, even on this thread, and then there can be discussion.
No, from what I can tell there is just a lot of made up fantasy. You want to believe the media covered it up, so you'll ignore all the evidence which proves your claim wrong (like, for example, the fact that nearly every media outlet covered the story).

It's not being covered up, it just wasn't profitable.
It is being reported on. The problem Cons are having is that WaPo is not stoking their outrage.

Oh, I know. They are so desperate to find evidence of a "liberal bias" in the media, they'll take any chance they can to note it, even when it doesn't make a bit of sense. I find it amusing how they keep ignoring the fact it was covered by nearly every news outlet when it happened.
 
You've just described what happened anyway despite abortion being legal! The reason you don't what happened is possibly because of the lack of coverage by the leftist media or you just don't want to know. Babies are being murdered, which is what abortion is, but now the reality of abortion is finally starting to hit home among the abortion enthusiasts and they don't like what they see.

All the Orwellian euphemisms at their disposal won't get them away from the real horror abortion is.

This was one doctor versus hundreds before RoevWade.
 
After looking at some of the links in here I see that the lib media has finally been shamed into giving this story at least token coverage, once again three cheers for FOX, without them this would have been swept under the rug.
 
After looking at some of the links in here I see that the lib media has finally been shamed into giving this story at least token coverage, once again three cheers for FOX, without them this would have been swept under the rug.
The links I provided were all from 2011. It had nothing to do with Fox.
 
The trial received no mentions on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and PBS programming until last week. NPR’s “All Things Considered” reported one piece on it at the end of last month, as did the New York Times on March 19. Until Friday, CNN had aired only 76 words on the trial when host Jake Tapper mentioned it March 28. The Washington Post hadn’t reported a word on the trial until Friday.

link above (wapo)
 
No, from what I can tell there is just a lot of made up fantasy. You want to believe the media covered it up, so you'll ignore all the evidence which proves your claim wrong (like, for example, the fact that nearly every media outlet covered the story).

the media are saying the media covered it up.

It's not being covered up, it just wasn't profitable.

But Sandra Fluke, Treyvon martin and all the publicity these people received was 'profitable'? Who is their intended audience who they feel can make them profitable?


Oh, I know. They are so desperate to find evidence of a "liberal bias" in the media, they'll take any chance they can to note it, even when it doesn't make a bit of sense. I find it amusing how they keep ignoring the fact it was covered by nearly every news outlet when it happened.

When it happened it was mentioned but with little in between. But if you feel that this was covered adequately and are satisfied with the MSM then there is little to discuss.
 
the media are saying the media covered it up.
Stop and think just how silly that sounds...

But Sandra Fluke, Treyvon martin and all the publicity these people received was 'profitable'?
Yes. But when was the last time you heard about Sandra Fluke?

Who is their intended audience who they feel can make them profitable?
Whomever decided to click on their articles and watch their programs, thus enabling the news to sell advertising.

When it happened it was mentioned but with little in between. But if you feel that this was covered adequately and are satisfied with the MSM then there is little to discuss.
What was there to cover in between? Is it your position a news story should be covered when there is no news?
 
This was one doctor versus hundreds before RoevWade.

One doctor? How do you know that if those responsible for making sure abortionists aren't following procedures, and the MSM refuses to give it sufficient coverage when these things do happen? This had been going on for years before anyone came forward and then only because it was suspicion of drugs, not that people were being murdered.
 
Well it seems you moved on from it being only a sanitation problem. That's progress.

Never said it was ONLY a sanitation problem.. stop making **** up. I said a sanitation and malpractice issue. That I corrected also to murder.
 
One doctor? How do you know that if those responsible for making sure abortionists aren't following procedures, and the MSM refuses to give it sufficient coverage when these things do happen? This had been going on for years before anyone came forward and then only because it was suspicion of drugs, not that people were being murdered.

How often does something similar go in other areas of medicine? I'm sure it probably does. Where's the media on those? Where's Fox, since sawyer's saying "Thank you Fox...?" Like there's no malpractice outside of abortion doctors? I find that hard to believe.

Even the Conservative media outlets don't care about those because it's not a hot button social issue. They're telling you what to give a crap about, which isn't any different from the "evil librul media" who decide that this isn't something to draw attention to.
 
One doctor? How do you know that if those responsible for making sure abortionists aren't following procedures, and the MSM refuses to give it sufficient coverage when these things do happen? This had been going on for years before anyone came forward and then only because it was suspicion of drugs, not that people were being murdered.

I don't and neither do you. Have a nice day.
 
If only those babies were still located inside a vagina or just a few days younger, then it would all be OK. It's his own fault really, he should have stuffed them back in or something and then killed them.
 
Last edited:
Never said it was ONLY a sanitation problem.. stop making **** up. I said a sanitation and malpractice issue. That I corrected also to murder.

Right. It's a murder story, as well as a major media cover-up.
 
Right. It's a murder story, as well as a major media cover-up.

How many other murders get nationwide coverage? Some do, many don't. What's the line at which they cover it? If Fox gets their viewers up in a lather about it?
 
How often does something similar go in other areas of medicine? I'm sure it probably does.

Provide the evidence, please, that will explain your certainty.

Even the Conservative media outlets don't care about those because it's not a hot button social issue. They're telling you what to give a crap about, which isn't any different from the "evil librul media" who decide that this isn't something to draw attention to.

Well it seems to be drawing some attention now, and it seems we can agree that this is a good thing. No?
 
How many other murders get nationwide coverage? Some do, many don't. What's the line at which they cover it? If Fox gets their viewers up in a lather about it?

Yes, some do and some don't. What is your point?

Perhaps this is finally drawing interest because who the victims were, and the fact that there appears to have been a cover-up by the MSM.. Have you considered that possibility?
 
If only those babies were still located inside a vagina or just a few days younger, then it would all be OK. It's his own fault really, he should have stuffed them back in or something and then killed them.

Yes, the important part to many is that the babies are dead.

It seems that at one time dead baby jokes were considered to be sick and in bad taste but now dead babies are taken for granted and not even considered newsworthy, even when its being done on an industrial-like scale.
 
Back
Top Bottom