Friday, February 18, 2005


The SAEN Editorial Board On Abortion

Cynthia Massey of Scene in SA has kindly give the Commando permission to excerpt from her article on the SAEN editorial board on my blog. Mucho thanks Cynthia. Here is what Cynthia found out about the SAEN's editorial board regarding abortion:
Clinging with a death grip on a belief in a woman's "right" for an abortion under virtually any circumstances, this board disregards the sentiments of a vast majority of Americans-72 percent according to the most recent Gallup Poll-who favor restrictions, because they view abortion from a moral and ethical perspective, rather than from a 'rights' point of view.

The board spewed venom at Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, in editorials (4/11/03, 5/2/03) blasting his sponsorship of legislation called the "Woman's Right to Know Act" that requires a 24-hour waiting period and the dissemination of a pamphlet that includes pictures of developing fetuses. The newspaper urged its defeat, calling it a "coercive piece of legislation" (5/2/03).

The legislation passed.

Stayed tuned as I address the editorial board's opinions on other issues over the next week.
I'd like to encourage those of you interested in the liberal bias of the news stories of the Express-News to read our magazine's continuing coverage of that issue by Marco Gilliam, Newspaper Veterans for Truth (comprised of four former EN editorial writers). Since October, our magazine has published their columns on various biased reporting issues. In our March issue (which will be available at Borders and several HEBs by March 4), the Newspaper Vets write about the unbalanced Iraq war coverage. Their column is fast becoming our most popular. Gilliam has a biting writing style that I think you'll enjoy.
In the end, Scene in SA is guilty of exactly the same fault it hurls at the Express-News: giving a biased, one-sided account.

No fair-minded person would argue with the proposition that the E-N is overwhelmingly liberal. But there are notable exceptions to this on the news and editorial staffs. In Scene's series, not one word -- not one -- has been printed about these people.

The irony is that Gilliam calls his group Newspaper Veterans for Truth, yet they and Scene appear no more interested in writing the truth than Bob Rivard is interested in running positive news stories from Iraq.

Particularly tawdry is Gilliam's regular use of anonymous, off-the-record and unattributed sources to make his case for "the truth." Does anyone really care if Rivard wears bermuda shorts on Friday, and does that have any bearing on bias?

Also as a matter of journalistic propriety, Scene should disclose to its readers the former employment of its publisher at the Express-News and the circumstances of his departure.

There's ample evidence to make the case for bias at the Express-News. But that case loses its credibility when only one dimension to the story is discussed and when lax journalistic standards and ad hominem attacks replace verifiable facts.
As my post mentions, and you apparently didn't read, this is the fisrt in a serious of posts addressing various issues from the Cynthia Massey article.
I find it interesting that "Anonymous" does not give his/her name at the same time he/she castigates Marco Gilliam for not providing the names of his sources in some of his articles (incidentally, this is a legitimate journalistic practice). As for the publisher of SCENE: His past employment as a sales rep for EN (years ago) has no relevance to the articles we publish today. As a matter of fact, I brought Gilliam on as a columnist, and he gets a substantial amount of positive emails. C. Massey
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?