A Tale of Two Planned Parenthood Controversies: Wall-to-Wall Komen vs. Silence for Live Action
When cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure prepared to withdraw less than a million dollars of funding per year from Planned Parenthood, the three broadcast networks went ballistic, devoting a host of stories to the “explosion of anger” against Komen. But when videos allegedly showing Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selection abortions were released by a pro-life group, the major networks completely and predictably buried the story.
Pro-life group Live Action released a video on May 29 showing a Planned Parenthood staffer helping a Live Action actor obtain a sex-selection abortion. On the morning of May 31, they released a second video with similar content. But the networks buried the story: not a single second of coverage was devoted to the Live Action videos by ABC, CBS, and NBC, on both the evening shows of May 29 and 30, and the morning shows of May 30 and 31.
Video after the jump.
But it’s not as if the networks don’t think stories involving Planned Parenthood are important. AP broke the news on January 31 that Komen was going to cease allocating funds to Planned Parenthood. Within days, the networks launched a barrage of unrelenting negative coverage at Komen, until the group caved to intense media pressure and reinstated funding for Planned Parenthood.
In the first 48 hours alone after the news broke, the networks swarmed to Planned Parenthood’s defense. On the evening shows on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, and the morning shows of Feb. 1 and Feb. 2, the three major networks did 4 full stories (not including brief mentions) about the Komen decision, and gave 9 minutes and 53 seconds of coverage to the Komen flap.
The funding Komen was prepared to withdraw from Planned Parenthood amounted to less than a tenth of one percent of Planned Parenthood’s yearly revenue. Yet the networks painted the Komen decision as a crushing blow to Planned Parenthood, claiming that the defunding would “cut off funds for critical breast cancer screenings.”
But a taxpayer-funded organization assisting the practice of sex-selection abortion has not garnered even a whiff of interest from the networks. This is unsurprising, considering the media has made a practice of burying controversies reflecting badly on Planned Parenthood. In 2011, when another Planned Parenthood video scandal broke, the networks were too busy reporting on every sordid detail of actor Charlie Sheen's meltdown to mention it.
The major networks have chosen to act as press agents for Planned Parenthood, tamping down any hint of scandal that might harm the abortion giant, and amplifying the complaints of Planned Parenthood supporters.
- Paul Wilson's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Lila Rose, age 23 - the lib's worst nightmare.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 2:13pm.
.
Another babe in the long list
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 2:24pm.
Another babe in the long list of beautiful conservative women. Shallow, maybe, but, hey, I have eyes. So sue me.
And this is THE BEST EVIDENCE
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 2:49pm.
to prove liberal bias. It's a concerted cover-up.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Anti Romney commercial
Submitted by Red Bill on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 3:23pm.
I heard that Planned Parenthood was launching a $1.2 million dollar add campaign against Mitt. How is that legal, about half of their income is tax payer dollars.
Komen
Submitted by lilium479 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 3:44pm.
Just another money laundering criminal enterprise.
This is why*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 3:53pm.
PP needs money and the media is helping them. Before clicking on this link, make sure your security is working.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/25/planned-parenthood-purchases-new-35m-...
No "liberal bias" here
Submitted by Edhenry on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 4:36pm.
Think about it, you are among the 99.9% of journalists that have been indoctrinated with:
Baby killing is a protected "right" - (Now add contraception for me, paid by thee)
Man made global warming
Evolution
Secular humanism
Now you're a journalist and come across two issues in the last few months.
1. Less money for baby killing
2. Gender biased infanticide.
Given a journalist's indoctrination, which issue is important? And which issue doesn't even register on the "moral" antenna?
(Hint: what would appear to be important/shocking/horrific to the unwashed, knuckle draggers clinging to our bibles, is the opposite of what is important to these vastly superior intellectuals)
In the beginnings of TV news,
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:42am.
In the beginnings of TV news, the "News" was presented as a PUBLIC SERVICE, as a "Condition of their broadcast license"
Somewhere, about the time of the race riots in the early 60's, that changed when the media appealed for selling advertising time during the 'news' broadcast time.
Before that occurred, the (REAL) news was presented in a straightforward, no nonsense and drifting into other bits and pieces of useless knowledge.
Everything was factual and clipped to fit into a scant 30 minutes so they could get back to profit producing, sellable airtime.
A return to that status would be highly desirable. The major broadcast networks would be the only ones affected and abc,cbs and nbc would once again have to depend on DECENT, desirable programming to attract and hold viewers.
Sounds like it would either get worthwhile TV shows, or the death knell for companies that are too big to succeed without sleaze and slime....
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?