Hot Air, tonight, has a series of links up about a recent NY Times article on abortion which included a bit about about a woman who was serving 30 years in a prison in El Salvador for getting an abortion.
Only one problem; That’s not what happened. As NYT Public editor Byron Calme attempts to explain,
Apart from the flawed example of Ms. Climaco, Mr. Hitt’s 7,800-word cover article provided a broad and intriguing look at a nation where the penal code allows prison sentences for a woman who has an abortion, the provider of the procedure or anyone who assisted. His interviews with doctors, nurses, police officers, prosecutors, judges and both opponents and advocates of abortion offered revealing personal perspectives on the effects of the criminalization of the procedure.
According to Calme;
Complaints about the article began arriving at the paper after an anti-abortion Web site, LifeSiteNews.com, reported on Nov. 27 that the court had found that Ms. Climaco’s pregnancy ended with a full-term live birth. The headline: “New York Times Caught in Abortion-Promoting Whopper — Infanticide Portrayed as Abortion.” Seizing on the misleading presentation of the article’s only example of a 30-year jail sentence for an abortion, the site urged viewers to complain to the publisher and the president of The Times. A few came to me.
Says he:
The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn’t meet the magazine’s normal standards.
Given the frequency with which this kind of ‘error’ pops up, I cannot help but wonder, if that isn’t precisely the magazine’s normal standards. As a matter of fact, the entire of the New York Times can be placed in the same category, rather easily. That may seem a brash statement, but consider; had it not been for LifeSiteNews, this situation would not have come to light at all. Given that point, how in the world can we trust the New York Times historically, not just in the articles they’re producing today? The answer, if we are fair, is that we cannot.
(Tell me again, about how Blogdom isn’t shaking the towers of the Mighty MSM, people.)
Look again at what Calme says the article’ stated purpose was:
Mr. Hitt’s 7,800-word cover article provided a broad and intriguing look at a nation where the penal code allows prison sentences for a woman who has an abortion, the provider of the procedure or anyone who assisted. His interviews with doctors, nurses, police officers, prosecutors, judges and both opponents and advocates of abortion offered revealing personal perspectives on the effects of the criminalization of the procedure.
Even on Mr. Calme’s sparse and sympathetic overview, the purpose of the article is clear; placing countries and authorities where abortion is illegal in a bad light. Clearly, this can be nothing less than a promotion of legalized abortion. No small wonder then, that the Times refuses to make a correction on the article, stating that the sole person that they refer to who caught 30 years, actually had a live birth and then killed the infant. To expose that kind of inaccuracy, clearly discredits the article , the article’s author, and the article’s publisher, the New York Times. It also, most imporantly to the Times, discredits the pro-abortion point of view promoted by that article.
Tags: BitsBlog, Social Issues, WHAT biased press?
