NRL News

Oblivious to their biases, WaPo media columnist misses “abortion distortions” and hatred of President Trump

by | Dec 11, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Margaret Sullivan

Margaret Sullivan

As promised, here is the second of two posts today about media bias/anti-life sentiment on steroids.

We talked in the first post about how the Irish news media, relentlessly pro-abortion, puts the most misleading spin imaginable on everything in their effort to gut the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution which guarantees equal rights to mothers and unborn children [“Misleading headlines part of the media offensive against protective Irish abortion laws”].

In this second post, I’d like to talk about Margaret Sullivan’s column posted today for the Washington Post about the use of anonymous sources.

Why is that of relevance to us? For one thing, an ancillary but important part of her piece has less to do with media rules (which vary) about what safeguards they need in place to avoid making calamitous mistakes than it is to clobber one pro-life organization.

More importantly, in a column about how news outlets vet anonymous sources, you would think—but you would be wrong—that Sullivan, the former Ombudsman [“Public Editor”] for the New York Times and currently the Post’s media columnist, would cite the disastrous run of stories produced by CNN as counterexamples—illustrations of what can go wrong with anonymous sources when a news outlet has an agenda to which it bends all “facts.”

CNN—which farcically bills itself as “The most trusted name in news”—is on a disastrous roll. It has made mistakes so numerous, so elementary, so obviously the product of a get-President-Trump-at-all-costs mentality that a high school newspaper editor would hang his/her head in shame if any of these egregious gaffes, let alone all, passed through their desk.

But maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that Sullivan manages to completely ignore CNN’s wave of mistakes. Sullivan is to hard-core pro-abortion what Hillary Clinton is to excuse-mongering. (Not surprisingly, Sullivan’s part-time job is apologizing for Clinton.)

In addition, her hatred for President Trump is so deep and so abiding, it colors everything she writes. Including today’s column. (By the way, it appears that wearing the hat of “media columnist” means Sullivan doesn’t have an editor.)

However it’s not just that CNN gets a free pass: it gets praised!

Frank Sesno, director of George Washington University’s media school, told me he wishes people understood the “the vetting process, the checks and balances that viewers never see that television networks do (or should) as a matter of course.”

Sesno, a former Washington bureau chief for CNN, added: “At CNN, a whole group, the Row, exists to vet scripts, to make sure sound bites are used in context, to fact-check. They send scripts back when there is any question.”

No, no, no, and no. That is not remotely true whenever the thrust of the story is to do damage to President Trump.

My point is a simple one. Pro-lifers and certainly pro-life office holders have long since grown accustomed to being treated unfairly and in a one-sided manner. We’re adults and we understand that there is precious little we can do about the “mainstream media” except to create alternative information sources such as NRL News Today.

But this “abortion distortion” has reached epidemic levels. Sullivan is the epitome of a media figure who has been flattered nonstop, moving from one tower of the Media Establishment to another.

Better yet (for her), instead of even pretending to critique the newspaper she works for (as Sullivan was supposed to do as the Times’ “Public Editor”), at the Post she tells us 24/7 how wonderful the Establishment Media are. Indeed the more unfair they are—and the more hostile they are to pro-life office holders—the more she loves them.

Talk about living in a media bubble.

Categories: Abortion Media Bias
Tags: abortion