|
Drudge faces the King Kong pro-aborts |
|
Drudge faces the King Kong pro-aborts |
|
|
Matt Drudge has tangled with the big media
pro-aborts. On his Fox News Channel program Drudge intended to show a picture of a child
undergoing surgery for a spina bifida condition. The problem Fox had with this was that it
was a very young child (only 21 weeks from conception, and in fact, the child was still in
his mother's womb during the operation), and Drudge wanted to use the photo during a
discussion of the so-called "partial birth abortion" method of killing
children. Here's the Fox position, as quoted from Yahoo News: ``He was using this photo from the National Enquirer as a jumping-off point to talk about partial-birth abortion,'' said Fox spokesman Brian Lewis. ``It was a picture of an emergency operation for spina bifida. We thought it was a blatant misrepresentation. It was a straight editorial decision.'' Drudge, of course, had no intention of saying the photo was of a child being killed by an abortionist, but Fox had to say something, so they came up with something that someone at the network was able to say with a straight face, even though they know good and well that only an idiot would attempt to claim that an operation being performed on a child in the womb was really a child being murdered by the partial birth technique. No, the point Drudge wanted to make was very simple: A child at 21 weeks is not a lump of cells or a blob or a frog or whatever else pro-aborts like to claim when they justify the murder of very young children. At 21 weeks, even fingers and toes are perfectly formed. And abortionists are killing children at 21 weeks and 30 weeks and 35 weeks... The statement from Fox implies that if Drudge had instead used a picture of a child being murdered by an abortionist using the partial birth technique there would have been no problem. Picture and discussion would have been perfectly matched from an editorial point of view and Drudge could have done the show without interference. Does anyone believe that? Of course not. This illustrates how weak it is for a media corporation like Fox to just blabber out the first lie that comes to mind when their censorship of child killing discussion is challenged. It would make them look less stupid (though not less corrupt) if they just told the truth: "When it comes to abortion, we don't do journalism. We do pro-abort propaganda or we collaborate with silence. We don't report because we've already decided." PB 11/16/1999
Send someone a link to this page? |
