Bi­ased cov­er­age in pro-life top­ics?

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

It is gen­er­ally un­der­stood that ob­jec­tive jour­nal­ism should re­main neu­tral and un­bi­ased, re­gard­less of the writer’s opin­ion or per­sonal be­liefs. It’s also gen­er­ally un­der­stood that to main­tain ob­jec­tiv­ity, jour­nal­ists need to present the facts whether or not they like or agree with them. In ad­di­tion, ‘demon­stra­bly cor­rect in­for­ma­tion’ is their stock in trade.

Pro-lifers con­tin­u­ally present demon­stra­bly cor­rect in­for­ma­tion about the process and con­se­quences of abor­tion, and urge bet­ter so­lu­tions. In re­turn they are rou­tinely mocked and ex­co­ri­ated and their in­for­ma­tion ig­nored or scoff­in­gly dis­missed.

It has been in­creas­ingly ob­vi­ous that some Guardian re­porters are bi­ased in their cov­er­age of pro-life top­ics. But no one told the pub­lic that the pa­per it­self has dropped ob­jec­tiv­ity from its ethics code. And un­til the Jan­uary 7 edi­to­rial, no one told us the Guardian has long sup­ported and ap­plauded ef­forts to es­tab­lish in-prov­ince abor­tion ser­vices.

Premier MacLauch­lan says re­ju­ve­nat­ing P.E.I.’s pop­u­la­tion is ur­gent. The Guardian re­sponds by urg­ing him to make it even eas­ier to get rid of our own un­wanted lit­tle ones. Will it also urge Health P.E.I. to cover med­i­cal costs re­lated to the known and pre­dictable health con­se­quences (both im­me­di­ate and de­layed) of to­tally un­re­stricted abor­tion? What kind of guide­lines and time lim­its will the pa­per ad­vo­cate?

It is said that we reap what we sow. What do you sup­pose this crop will be? And how will the Guardian re­port it? Doreen Beagan, Char­lot­te­town

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.