Associated Press on Time magazine graphic cover photo: quotes Stanek
My weekend question, “What do you think of Time magazine’s graphic cover photo?,” grabbed the attention of an Associated Press reporter writing on the same topic.
The reporter requested my thoughts, and here are the relevant excerpts to our issue:
… The portrait has quickly become a symbol of the stakes of a nearly decade-old war. It has been brandished before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on television, dissected in online commentary and extrapolated into a conversation-starter about topics ranging from anti-abortion activism to violence against women….
Still, some have responded to the photo by adopting Aisha as an image of far more than Afghanistan’s struggle or journalism’s role in shaping it.
Jill Stanek, an anti-abortion activist and blogger, draws parallels between the Time picture and the graphic photos her fellow activists sometimes use to press their cause….
I thought you might be interested in her questions and my answers, which I gave her complete with hyperlinks:
1. How do you feel about the photo?
One picture is worth a thousand words. I think most graphic photos illuminating atrocities are persuasive.
Pictures have been helpful to spur most modern-day social justice movements since Lewis Hine photographed child laborers in the early 20th Century. The open casket and published photos of murdered 14-year-old African-American Emmett Till in Jet magazine in 1955 helped launch the Civil Rights movement. And who can forget the photo of young Phan Th? Kim Phúc running naked down a South Vietnamese road after being napalmed, which also increased opposition to the Viet Nam War (an AP photo, interestingly)?
So I applaud Time for showcasing the atrocities being committed against girls and women under extremist Muslim regimes. I am hopeful Time’s photo will make a difference.
I wrote “most” modern-day social justice movements, because there is one modern-day social justice movement and atrocity that journalism censors: abortion and the pro-life movement. The point of my post was to point out the hypocrisy, using the mainstream media’s own words.
If a journalistic outlet with integrity and a sense of balance and fairness were to film and show what actually goes on inside abortion clinics, the American public, which is already leaning against abortion, would in large part turn against it, just as the public turned against child labor only after seeing photos, etc.
2. Were you surprised by your readers’ response?
No. I anticipated pro-life activists would understand and agree with my underlying point, and pro-choicers (and pro-life pacifists) would either disagree with my underlying point or not see it at all.
3. So – just to close the loop – your answer to the question you posted readers, “Does Time’s rationale for publishing its photo hold for pro-life use of graphic photos of aborted babies?,” would be yes, in the spirit of confronting people with the realities of both?
Yes, absolutely.

All I can say is: WOW!
IS MSM going back to it’s roots of ‘unbiased’ jornalism???
As they in the game show Family Feud ” Good Answer, Jill !!! “
Awesome Jill. God bless you.
Hello Jill,
Just wanted to THANK YOU for all you are doing to inform the public of so many atrocities around the world and here in the USA. While these photos are heartbreaking (the saline abortion photo made me cry) they need to be published as so many out there have no clue of how women are deprived of any rights of their own in other countries, as well as the fact that “life begins at conception” and that God has this child (in the photo) and millions of others IN HIS HAND.
I pray that everyone who reads your article(s) will take a moment and remember that we have a wonderful, loving God, our heavenly father, who created us and gave us life.
Thank you again and Bless You,
Lisa
Hey Jill,
I completely agree with you. Although these pictures are heartbreaking, they are the truth. But the problem arises when people think they are too “in your face.” Even many anti-abortion activists think they are too controversial. Personally, I tried to get Fletcher Armstrong’s GAP campaign into my Jesuit college, and my peers rejected the idea. They didn’t want to “scare” people into being pro-life. But isn’t abortion terrifying?! Why shouldn’t we be scared? What do you think?
“They didn’t want to “scare” people into being pro-life.”
————————————————————-
I really don’t like holding the aborted baby signs/ posters BUT I feel it’s something that needed to be done. I am just comforted with the fact that we are holding/showing the Truth about this grisly trade.
As Fr. Pavone said: “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion”.