Natural death: “anti-choice propaganda”
Last week you’ll recall I excerpted a story from Tribune Newspapers about a mother who completed the pregnancy of her anencephalic baby and was able to spend 35 minutes with him after delivery until he died.
It was a touching story that received several comments, including one from an aunt of the baby and two from other mothers who delivered anencephalic babies.
Well, it turns out the story was planted as part of an anti-abortion conspiracy plot to bolster support for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, as this May 11 letter to the editor revealed….
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
Published May 11, 2007
Anti-choice leaning
This is in response to “35 minutes to live, feel love; Jessica and Dave Weatherford knew Zeke’s time on Earth would be mere moments; His birth would be filled with warmth and caring” (News, May 3). I feel great sympathy for the Weatherfords and what they went through with the recent birth and death of their baby, but the Tribune’s decision to print their story on Page 3 was pure anti-choice propaganda. It was not even news.
The events described in the story occurred on March 6, almost two months ago, and the writer did not even bother to tell us that until the 23rd paragraph.
Coming just two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in the partial-birth abortion ban case, publishing this story clearly shows the Tribune’s bias against the choice to terminate a pregnancy.
Daniel Jordan, Evanston
Just so you know.
BTW, one of the papers in the Tribune group is the Los Angeles Times.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I remember reading about Miss D’ this story on the bbc.co.uk
I, like you, wish she could have opted to keep her baby – even if she could only hold him or her for a few seconds.
Edgar
It’s laughable to accuse the Tribune of having pro-life sympathies. The editorial position of the Trib has been smugly pro-choice for as long as I can remember — and this paper has landed on my porch every morning for the last 10 years, at least.
Anyone familiar with newspapers knows that some things are news only when lent context by other news. Thousands of stories are in limbo at any given time, awaiting context that would make their publication worthwhile.
On the other hand, Jill, you know as well as I do that VOTP is generally rife with yahoos. That someone’s loon enough to think the Trib pro-life isn’t itself all that newsworthy. ;-)
“I feel great sympathy for the Weatherfords and what they went through with the recent birth and death of their baby, but the Tribune’s decision to print their story on Page 3 was pure anti-choice propaganda. It was not even news.”
he says he feels GREAT sympathy for the family!! then he says “how dare you tell me that story”!!
jasper, you aren’t understanding the difference between what is news, and what is not. As a journalism major, there is a very definate difference. If a news story doesn’t affect large amounts of people, if it isn’t politically relevant, or if the readership doesn’t find it interesting, it isn’t news.
Every murder in Dallas isn’t reported at length for the reason that it isn’t particularly relevant. And just as every miscarriage isn’t reported in the newspaper, this story simply isn’t news. It isn’t relevant, it doesn’t affect large amounts of people, and the readership frankly doesn’t care. Sure, you can feel sympathy for the family, but this wasn’t news at all. Just as an abortion clinic closing isn’t news, any sort of abortion protest isn’t news, a pro-life leader becoming pro-choice isn’t news…unless its going to affect large amounts of people, as per the D&X ban, it isn’t worth the ink its printed with.
“If a news story doesn’t affect large amounts of people, if it isn’t politically relevant, or if the readership doesn’t find it interesting, it isn’t news.”
who’s to say this is not interestering? I found this to be a good story about life. News’s rooms make judgements every day about what goes into the paper. You don’t like it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Could someone please explain to me why the conservatives are referred to as “right wing” and the liberals as “left wing?” I personally am of the opinion that people who have the time to make up vector descriptions of political agendas need to be spending that time doing something more constructive. Like curing cancer.
Actually, a few months ago in the St. Paul Pioneer Press there was an article about this organization that would help families get prepared for the early death of their baby. OB/GYNs would give out the pamphlet for this group to parents who received fatal diagnoses for their baby before it was born so they could have time to prepare and decide whether to continue the pregnancy or to abort. I thought it was a well written, balanced article, but I can’t remember when it was written.
Don’t really understand the point of this entry, as you personally have said it’s okay for women to abort ancephalic fetuses.
who’s to say this is not interestering? I found this to be a good story about life. News’s rooms make judgements every day about what goes into the paper. You don’t like it because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Sure, its interesting, its a good story about life, but it is not news. If you had read my post closer, you would have seen plenty of examples of things that would fit my “agenda” aren’t news: I believe I specifically mentioned any sort of abortion protest, whether pro-life or pro-choice, unless it is nationwide, and I know I specifically mentioned a pro-lifer turning pro-choice. If Jill here suddenly turned pro-choice and shut down the blog, it wouldn’t be newsworthy. If the Catholic church, on the other hand, turned pro-choice, that would be news. See the difference? One affects the individual, the other a large group of people. This story affected the individual, and is thus not news.
Rae’s example is news, as it affects a large group of people in that specific city: it would not, however, be national news as it only affects a specific city.
Don’t really understand the point of this entry, as you personally have said it’s okay for women to abort ancephalic fetuses.
Who said that?
Less, this falls under the catagory of human interest story. It’s as newsworthy as the story of the man who had 2/4 of his children aborted.
That is to say, its not newsworthy at all.
In your opinion.
Newsworthy:
sufficiently interesting to be reported in a newspaper
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Go to google.com and type in “Newsworthy Human Interest”, and you’ll see lots of lists that pop up. Human interest is included in every list. Human interest on some of the sites is regarded as one that appeals to the readers emotions and is, from what I have found, without doubt, newsworthy, regardless of whether it’s AS newsworthy as other stories.
Many of them said they were seeking human interest stories. Why would a newspaper seek stories that would not appeal to the public?
Bethany, it isn’t in my opinion, its according to the vast majority of other journalists. Most human interest stories aren’t newsworthy: they’re only printed in a paper when you don’t have enough news stories. The fact that this newspaper put a human interest story on page three shows that they really did drop the ball, though I highly highly doubt that they did it as propaganda. Most of the time when something like this happens, another, more relevant, news story was pulled at the last minute for some reason, or the reporter never submitted it.
Okay,I understand what you’re saying. I do appreciate you saying that you don’t think it was done as propaganda. That’s what this whole topic was about anyway. :)
Oh, I highly doubt it was propaganda. As someone who works for a newspaper, it happens sometimes: a reporter doesn’t submit his or her story, there has to be something to fill it. In the shuffle, I’d imagine sometimes political consequences can be forgotten or ignored. The hours around a deadline are insanity, so I’d imagine that’s how it happened.