Tag Archives: unattributed

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen? According to an  American Life League review  of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy. Don’t Follow the Money The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50 th  anniversary of the Pill. From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood. The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood. Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization. Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue.  Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it  received a reported  $240.9 million from taxpayers. While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions. Favorite Experts Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization. The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15). When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50 th  anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible. A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota. When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”   The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said. In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives. Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months. But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets. The Sound of Silence One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.” Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.

National Review’s Nordlinger: Conservatives ‘Far Too Timid, Delicate, and Forgiving’ About Media Bias

At National Review Online’s The Corner on Tuesday, NR senior editor Jay Nordlinger was spurred by the David Weigel controversy and the open-mic press pounding on Sarah Palin’s California college speech to suggest conservatives aren’t loud or persistent enough about protesting bias against the Right:  I think many of my conservative colleagues are far too gingerly when it comes to liberal media bias. Far too timid, delicate, and forgiving. For a long time, complaining about media bias has been seen as uncouth. It’s something we all need to learn to live with, like death, taxes, and mosquitoes. Don’t be uncool by bitching about it, man…. Conservatives should be frank and bold when it comes to the media, as to everything else. And if others say you’re tiresome or whiny or uncool…well, so be it. Did you sign up for conservatism to be cool? One more thing, before I go: I have a friend who’s an old-school political reporter, practically a dinosaur. He stresses the principle, “No cheering in the pressbox” — a statement taken from sports journalism, obviously. No cheering in the pressbox? The guys I have in mind — mainstream-media reporters all — don’t so much cheer as turn cartwheels while blowing on vuvuzelas. And they are cartwheeling and blowing for the Democratic party. Obviously, we agree, like Willie Horton proclaimed from prison “Obviously, I’m for Dukakis.” Nordlinger compared it to a column by former New York Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal about anti-Semitism, that people were too polite when they should be making accusations.  Every now and then, the curtain is pulled back on the mainstream media — and we see how these guys talk and act when they’re at their most authentic. This is important. Liberal media bias is maybe something we all have to live with, but that doesn’t mean it’s something to ignore, be blasé about, or excuse. I’m grateful to both Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters for something: They admitted, yes, the media are liberal, and a good thing, too. It has to be that way, they said. For — and this is Walters talking — journalism involves the “human condition,” and liberals care about the human condition. Unlike conservatives, who of course couldn’t give a rat’s a** about the human condition. Here are two Cronkite gems we found that illustrate Nordlinger’s point: that journalists are only liberals because they have been sensitized, granted an emotional intelligence by exposure to the “meaner side of life,” unlike those Republicans. “I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.” — Cronkite to Time magazine’s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine’s November 3, 2003 edition. “I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities – the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated. We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism – that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased.” — Cronkite in his debut as a syndicated columnist, August 6, 2003. If you don’t follow Nordlinger’s “Impromptus” columns , you should give them a try.  [Hat tip: Blue & White Soul Food]

View post:
National Review’s Nordlinger: Conservatives ‘Far Too Timid, Delicate, and Forgiving’ About Media Bias

Barnicle Pans Kirk Apology: Maybe Mark Should Use Mike’s

I blog often about Mike Barnicle, and while referring to him as a former Boston Globe columnist, am not in the habit of mentioning his ignominious departure from the Globe under a cloud of plagiarism.  But Barnicle today forces my hand . . . Mark Kirk has gotten himself into a mess of trouble.  The Republican candidate for US Senate from Illinois has been caught out misrepresenting his record of service both in the military and as a school teacher . Morning Joe today aired a clip of Kirk’s apology, and Mike Barnicle found it wanting. In truth, Kirk’s statement was was not an exemplar of the genre. But of all people to criticize its lack of authenticity . . . Mike Barnicle?  Might Mike be happier if Kirk were to use the lame language Barnicle himself offered up when confronted with the evidence of his unattributed borrowing from the works of others? Here was Barnicle this morning . . .  MIKE BARNICLE: I find it continually surprising over the past five or six years, how these politicians, with their embroiderments, become so tediously the same in their apologies and explanations. Here’s how the American Journalism Review reported  Barnicle’s apology the time: Barnicle refused to go quietly, arguing his case on every media outlet from Don Imus’ radio show to NBC’s “Today.” “You can accuse me of sloppiness and I plead guilty,” he said. “Intellectual laziness. I plead guilty. Plagiarism. No.” It does have a certain ring.  A classic non-apology apology.  Maybe Kirk should give it a go–giving full credit to its original author, of course. At least Mark would, presumably, get Mike off his back.

Excerpt from:
Barnicle Pans Kirk Apology: Maybe Mark Should Use Mike’s