Court affirms media was wrong: videos dealing in baby parts were NOT deceptively edited

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that allows Texas to strip Planned Parenthood of its Medicaid funding.... to have Planned Parenthood removed as a qualified Medicaid provider following the release of several damning undercover videos, should come as a major blow to not just the abortion provider, but also the press.

Four years later, we learn from the 5th Circuit that the videos were neither selectively edited, nor was it false to say that Planned Parenthood associates circumvented legal, medical, and ethical guidelines in pursuit of salvaging human remains.

The ruling shatters the claim that the tapes, which feature Planned Parenthood associates discussing the processes by which organs from the remains of aborted children can be harvested and donated (for a fee), were selectively edited. It also affirms that Planned Parenthood associates did indeed circumvent legal and ethical guidelines in pursuit of harvesting human organs, all of this in direct contradiction to what the so-called women’s health organization and its eager defenders in the press claimed after the tapes were released in 2015.

Court affirms media was wrong!!

I love your quotes from the article, but was not sure what to think initially, until I confirmed that they were quotes from the article. Since you didn’t use Italics. Since I’m aware of the limitations of using a smartphone for composing HTML, I’m not complaining, just saying.
Be that as it may, the salient point is that “the MSM” can be documented to have been monochromatic on the issue, as your quote suggests. Hardly a novel point today - but it was otherwise in 1964. I cite that date because that was when the famous New York Times v. Sullivan decision was handed down by SCOTUS. That unanimous ruling is used to discourage politicians, and even judges, from suing for libel. But your quotes are examples of why the presidential effect of that ruling from a half-century ago needs to be modified.
Understand, any court, including SCOTUS, would have to affirm the Sullivan decision if presented with the Sullivan facts. But if you read Sullivan today, it sounds quaint. First of all, the losing plaintiff was a Southern Democrat - a breed which was in bad odor nationally in 1964 and which has not gained prestige since then. On that basis alone, you would expect the Warren Court to come down on him pretty hard if given the opportunity. Secondly, the compliant was about an ad, not editorial content of The New York Times. But most of all, 1964 was the heyday of Walter Cronkite; “bias in the media” was not often spoken of in those times. Although Barry Goldwater did complain about “the referees” after the presidential election in that year. Certainly we didn’t have a POTUS complaining consistently about “fake news.”
The point is that Sullivan applies to Democrats and Republicans alike, in precisely the same way that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich and poor alike. Because rich people don’t ever need to sleep under a bridge, but poor people do. Likewise, Democrats don’t get libeled - but Republicans routinely do. Any impediment to suing for libel affects only Republicans. The facts before SCOTUS in Sullivan would not make anyone suspect that.
IMHO the Republican Party must sue the wire services and their members/clients, on antitrust grounds. And also sue the government agencies which place the imprimatur of the government on claims of journalistic objectivity. That is the entire purpose of the FEC, so it should be thrown out - McConnell v. FEC should be overturned. And no school should spend government money promulgating that lie, any more than Planned Parenthood should be allowed to lie about Project Veritas without losing government money.

Very interesting thank you. A good read...

I wish I could be hopeful that ‘media’ would be brought to task for what they consistently do in supressing and discrediting not only the truth, when it’s revealed and exposed, but also going after those who reveal it.

Unfortunately we know there’s one set of rules and consequences for the people... and then one set of rules for government, ‘media’, banking, corporate entities and their extremely wealthy financiers/donors, with very limited consequences if at all.

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.