Biased coverage in pro-life topics?

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