Journalists work in a field that can be viewed as operating with filters. Stories not deemed newsworthy or as garnering enough information or audience appeal are filtered out. It is also important to bear in mind that journalists cannot possibly cover every news event out there. However, the lack of coverage circulating with the Kermit Gosnell case seems to be rooted in a different reason. According to an article by Paul Farhi on The Washington Post’s website, Gosnell’s 2011 arrest was widely covered, so why the lack of coverage surrounding his more recent trial? According to Farhi, much of the media attention outside of the case’s epicenter focused “on how little media attention the story was receiving outside of Philadelphia,” (Farhi).
 |
| Image Courtesy of http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/04/kermit-gosnell.html. |
Reasons for Lack of Coverage
Some of the reasons attributed to the national media’s slow pace in latching onto trial coverage deal with the assumed liberal bias of the mainstream media. Conservative outlets argued that the graphic details and the alleged crimes concerning Gosnell’s “house of horrors” abortion clinic run counter to the media’s support for abortion rights (Farhi). However, this argument against the liberal media does not hold up as coverage of the trial and drawing attention to the horrific conditions at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society and the operation of the facility can be seen as strengthening “the case for keeping abortion safe, legal and affordable,” (Farhi).
Farhi notes that media representatives also argued that other stories were demanding their attention and resources and “that the lack of cameras in the courtroom diminished TV interest in the story, that the Gosnell trial was simply overlooked,” (Farhi). The horrific nature of the case and the potential for the case to spur conversation on abortion issues does not appear to adhere to these poor reasons.
According to Farhi’s article, both liberal and conservative media appeared to overlook the story until a flood of tweets and commentaries came out. This point implies that national coverage only clamped down on the story after social media spurred the conversation on the case. Interestingly, news organizations defended their lack of coverage. In lieu of coverage for the Gosnell case, the case of Jodi Arias was the focus for the media. Perhaps the reason that this case appears to have taken precedence is that it involves sexual and romantic angles and the alleged killer is a woman.
According to Farhi’s article, both liberal and conservative media appeared to overlook the story until a flood of tweets and commentaries came out. This point implies that national coverage only clamped down on the story after social media spurred the conversation on the case. Interestingly, news organizations defended their lack of coverage. In lieu of coverage for the Gosnell case, the case of Jodi Arias was the focus for the media. Perhaps the reason that this case appears to have taken precedence is that it involves sexual and romantic angles and the alleged killer is a woman.
Selective Coverage
The argument made by Gollust of CNN for the coverage privileged to the Arias case is that cameras were permitted in the courtroom, but cameras were not permitted in the case of Gosnell. Martin Baron of The Post argued that he was unaware of the Gosnell story until readers emailed him about it. Whatever the reasoning behind the national media outlets, the lack of coverage for the Gosnell case elicits an important lesson for the media.
Foremost is that bias needs to be distanced from the coverage of any story as much as possible. Also, the media need to make a conscious effort to adequately cover cases that can be viewed as appealing to a widespread audience.
In this article, the precedence of the Arias case over the Gosnell case seems to be rooted in appeal. The sexual nature of the case may warrant a more sensational story, but the political and controversial nature of the Gosnell case also warrants extensive coverage. The national media have an obligation to their public to filter and choose their stories in an unbiased manner. They also have an obligation to focus on the actual story and not the lack of coverage surrounding a story, as illustrated with the Gosnell case.
Foremost is that bias needs to be distanced from the coverage of any story as much as possible. Also, the media need to make a conscious effort to adequately cover cases that can be viewed as appealing to a widespread audience.
In this article, the precedence of the Arias case over the Gosnell case seems to be rooted in appeal. The sexual nature of the case may warrant a more sensational story, but the political and controversial nature of the Gosnell case also warrants extensive coverage. The national media have an obligation to their public to filter and choose their stories in an unbiased manner. They also have an obligation to focus on the actual story and not the lack of coverage surrounding a story, as illustrated with the Gosnell case.
Video Courtesy of CNN's Youtube.
No comments:
Post a Comment