Major Media Monopoly Obeyed Planned Parenthood Disinformation About Pro-Life Centers

The cooperation between the seven major media monopolies and Planned Parenthood was vividly illustrated in a series of coÂordinated stories during the eighteen months between October 1985 and March 1987 and again during the summer of 1992.

Concerned that the grassroots pro-life movement was at last gaining an upper hand in the abortion battle, Planned ParentÂhood put together a well-orchestrated, heavily-financed, no-holdsÂ barred, negative public relations campaign. The campaign was aimed at the more than three thousand counseling centers established by pro-lifers in order to offer women, in the midst of crisis pregnancies, abortion alternatives and genuine help.

The centers, which were typically small, poorly financed, and run by volunteers, apparently had begun to substantially cut into the abortion trade. But, perhaps more importantly, they had also begun to steal Planned Parenthood’s thunder. The cenÂters were receiving favorable publicity from many quarters for their “helpful contributions to the process of developing informed choice on abortion.”

Planned Parenthood argued that many women were making appointments at the alternative centers thinking that they were actually abortion clinics. From time to time the volunteers at a few of the centers would allow that illusion to persist in the hopes of gaining a fair hearing on the facts of fetal development and the risks of abortion procedures. Although such tactics were exÂtremely few and far between, Planned Parenthood saw in them a golden opportunity.

Amy Sutnick, a public information associate for Planned Parenthood of New York City, wrote several news releases and put together a press packet labeling the alternative centers as “bogus” and “deceptive,” luring clients in by “masquerading” as abortion clinics and then “terrorizing” them with “horror stories,” “gory photographs,” and “brainwashing techniques.”

Sutnick approached a sympathetic reporter at the New York tabloid, the Daily News, with her packet and a proposal for a story. The reporter took the assignment and published a piece written along the lines of Sutnick’s news releases, often even using the same wording.

With the Daily News article now in hand, Sutnick began to call on other pro-abortion journalists in the city. Before long, she was able to place similar stories on virtually every New York television station, including the network affiliates, and in the other New York newspapers.

Soon the strategy began to snowball. Sutnick sent her growÂing pile of clippings along with her press packet to Planned Parenthood affiliates, clinics, and chapters around the country so that they could contact their local media outlets. Meanwhile, she also contacted all the various women’s magazines.

Hundreds of articles, stories, editorials, profiles, and news features resulted. From Vogue, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan to the Detroit Free Press, the Houston Chronicle, and the New York Times, Planned Parenthood’s smear campaign confronted consumer audiences everywhere.

But the big break came when both Newsweek and USA Today translated Sutnick’s now-stuffed portfolio into major stories.

The author of the two USA Today pieces, entitled “Bogus Abortion Clinics Draw Legal Fire” and ”Anti-Abortionists MasÂquerade as Clinics,” later admitted that she had not even visited any of the alternative centers. The only women she talked to were provided by Planned Parenthood. And a full quarÂter of the material was direct quotation and paraphrase from Sutnick.

The Newsweek story was built around dozens of independÂently verified news reports from all across the country-actually, the incestual progeny of Sutnick’s diligent labors. It described the pro-life volunteers working in the alternative centers as “radical” and “militant,” but “clever” “fundamentalists” who used “scare tactics” in order to ‘jolt” women out of the abortion deciÂsion. Entitled “Clinics of Deception: Pro-Lifers Set Up Shop,” the article’s synergism with Planned Parenthood’s campaign was perfectly choreographed.

Sutnick’s sleight-of-hand trick triggered an avalanche of conÂcern, stimulated a bevy of lawsuits, and manufactured a major news event.

A newly revealed email exchange shows a reporter for a major political magazine agreeing to use the exact word suggested by a member of Hillary’s staff to write positive coverage of her speech.

The email exchange between the Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder and Hillary Clinton’s aide at the State Department, Philippe Reines, took place in 2009. It was published Tuesday by Gawker.

Ambinder wrote to Reines asking for an advance copy of a speech Hillary was set to deliver to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Reines replied that he would make the speech available on three conditions:

1) You in your own voice describe them as "muscular"

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys â€” from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross â€” will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

3) You donâ€™t say you were blackmailed!

Ambinder immediately responded, “got it.” As promised, Ambinder wrote coverage of the CFR speech which opened:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL).

Asked about having Hillary’s PR people write his columns, Ambinder now claims he does not remember the exchange and adds that he is not interested in defending it. “It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable today,” he tells Gawker.

The Atlantic is not the only news site which covered Clinton’s CFR speech exactly as her staff wanted it covered. In an amazing coincidence, Mike Allen of Politico wrote about the speech in a piece that opened, “In a muscular first major address as secretary of state….” And midway through the story Allen writes, “A look at the CFR’s guest seating chart shows that arrayed in the front row will be top members of her team â€” the envoys she has called her “force multipliers”: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Philip Goldberg and Stephen Bosworth.”

Similarly, the New York Times’ Mark Landler seemed to be working from the same script. In his second paragraph he writes, “But with its muscular tone and sweeping scope, it was also an effort to recapture the limelight….” And in his fourth paragraph, he mentions the attendees, “She even marshaled a cheering section of special envoys and other senior American diplomats in the first few rows at the Council on Foreign Relations.” Neither of these details appeared in the Associated Press story about the speech which the New York Times linked.

There’s no proof that Allen or the Landler spoke with Reines or anyone else working for Clinton before filing their stories, but the details are remarkably similar. And, in the case of Politico‘s Mike Allen, other emails show he has willing to offer a guaranteed “no risk” interview of Chelsea Clinton, seemingly as a way to ingratiate himself with Hillary Clinton.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Venerable Tradition of Leftist Media Swallowing Whole Planned Parenthood Lies & Regurgitating Them to the Public as 'News'

The Early History of the Media Monopoly's Coordinated Assault on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

A newly revealed email exchange shows a reporter for a major political magazine agreeing to use the exact word suggested by a member of Hillary’s staff to write positive coverage of her speech.