Hell Freezes Over [LA Times editor slaps own paper on abortion bias]

The Corner (National Review Online) ^ | 5/28/03 | John Carroll

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

HELL FREEZES OVER [Rod Dreher]

"I'm trying to pick my jaw up off the floor," says an L.A. journalist friend who passes along this May 22 memo that Times editor John Carroll sent to some staffers:

To: SectionEds
Subject: Credibility/abortion

I'm concerned about the perception---and the occasional reality---that the Times is a liberal, "politically correct" newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring "so-called counseling of patients." I don't think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it "so-called," a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story's lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he "has a professional background in property management." Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.

John

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Posted by Rod Dreher in NRO's The Corner.

[mlmr]

My first thought...this is the Onion.

[hocndoc]

Ever so often I get hopeful that the media will begin to report the facts without allowing their own personal biases and private belief systems to kill anything they don't agree with (again, personally).

Think this will help?

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm speechless. This really should be picked up and shouted from the rooftops.

[Neanderthal]

I saw the Times article when it was published and I was actually amazed at the bias. This editor's response is surprising.

[Bahbah]

I wonder how long John is going to last at the Times?

[BCrago66]

I already e-mailed the author of that story, Scott Gold, and told him that his own editor identified him to the world as biased - and the the editors letter was on National Review Online.

[Uncle Miltie]

Bawahhaaahaaahaaahaaa!

Say it ain't so! The L.A. Times: Liberally biased?

20 years later, it dawns on them.

Thanks for the laugh!

[widowithfoursons]

He probably won't last very long considering his predeliction for facts.

[Richard Kimball]

Is this real? This sounds just like the so-called "I'm a bad American" by Dennis Miller/George Carlin or the "Andy Rooney" confessions.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Sounds like this guy is getting ready to retire or maybe Snopes is about to discount this story.

No way this guy plans on working more than 6 months more if this story is true. Maybe he has a terminal illness or something? Something outside of journalistic integrity is going on here; especially at the LA Times.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

I dunno, I suppose someone could have hoaxed Dreher, but it sounded like he knew the person who sent it to him ("an L.A. journalist friend").

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[TheCrusader]

This wonderful story proves the old addage, "all it takes for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing". For too many years good men in editor's positions have said nothing about the pro-abortion bias in the media. This is truly a ray of light.

[section9]

THIS CAN'T BE TRUE!

I mean, this letter is almost too good to be true, which makes me raise my bull$h*t antennae to new heights.

In other words, are we sure that this isn't a submission to The Onion?

This is the rag that performed journalistic fellatio on Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Governor Grayout. I really find this hard to believe.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Drango]

I'm still not gonna read the LA Slime.

[techcor]

BTTT.

[farmfriend]

We can only hope...