Corrupt Abortion Clinic Overlooked by Media

Hannah May

HM646010@ohio.edu

In 2011 the case of Doctor Kermit Gosnell began. Dr. Gosnell was accused of running a “house of horrors” abortion clinic where seven newborn infants and one mother were killed. Sounds pretty newsworthy and important, right? Some media outlets thought the exact opposite.

The case against Dr. Gosnell did not gain much, or nearly any, attention outside of Philadelphia. Now two years after the case began, the media are focusing on exactly that point. How did this story not gain an existential amount of media press when a certified doctor is being accused of running an extremely corrupt clinic resulting in the death of eight human beings? These crimes committed were said to run in complete opposition to what the general mainstream media states as their support for abortion rights. So, one would think that this story would be posted on the front page of numerous news outlets.

It was pointed out that the greater media attention would in fact help instead of hurt abortion rights advocates. At the Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society there were an unbelievable amount of illegal late-term abortions, unlicensed staff, unsanitary procedures and conditions. All of these code violations would inevitably help the cases in support of keeping abortion safe, legal and affordable.

Timeline of the Gosnell case:

• Case begins in 2011
• News outlets find the story not important and overlook it
• It's 2013 and the media is now being criticized for not paying enough attention to this extremely gruesome and appalling case
• Media outlets begin paying close attention to the case to defend themselves for lack of attention and coverage given in the first place

Questions to consider:

1. Could the lack of coverage be blamed on the journalists in the Philly area? 
2. Were they heavily influenced or persuaded by a higher power authority?
3. Is this evidence of liberal media bias?

The Media Research Center was stunned by the lack of coverage and started digging further into the case. The MRC expresses a passion for defending abortion rights. They believe that this story is a prime example of a threat to the abortion rights agenda and is bias by omission.

Reasons that media representatives said they were not fully active in representing this story:

1. That other stories were commanding their attention and resources
2. The lack of cameras in the courtroom diminished TV interest in the story
3. They had been “working” on the story – the final product wasn’t yet complete
4. They don’t cover criminal trails to the extent that other news organizations do
5. It is impossible to keep up with stories everywhere
6. The Gosnell trial was simply over looked

What about an extremely corrupt abortion clinic and eight possible murders causes a reporter to simply believe this was not as newsworthy as other stories and is overlooked?

So, what made the news outlets finally notice the story? Twitter. There was an influx of tweets and commentary that began and that is what led to the further investigation of this case.

For all those who believe that what you say on social media goes unheard, this is case is evidence that what you say on social media can tremendously affect what media sources think is relevant and important to the public. It is a way for you to publically voice your opinion and let thousands of people hear your voice.

Fox News is the only source that has been consistently covering the story. They have run 11 reports in a one-month time period. Along with Fox, the Associated Press has also been covering this trial heavily.

Media bias is not to blame for the lack of coverage on this story. It is the mere fact that this story was completely overlooked and seen as not important to society when compared to cases like the Arias trial, a sexual and romantic murder case. It is close to sick and twisted that a case like the Arias case can be seen more interesting than a case involving eight potential murders at an abortion clinic that has minimal to no regulations.