Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all.
h/t Kathy Shaidle
Everybody knows that when you have an abortion, E. Coli gives you a free pass and goes away.
Can you imagine if this story belonged to the CBC?
The reporter is being asked to reconcile her reportage with coverage from other sources and headlines she didn’t write. “Admits”? She’s being honest.
This reporter was merely trying to make the story fit into her pre-conceived biases and opinions, and the facts be damned.
It all goes back to the idea that journalists are there to “make a difference,” and not to report facts as truthfully as possible. “Spin” is in. Facts are boring. We need to write the story at the level of the lowest common denominator, and make sure it is splashy and trashy.
This reporter was merely trying to make the story fit into her pre-conceived biases and opinions, and the facts be damned.
It all goes back to the idea that journalists are there to “make a difference,” and not to report facts as truthfully as possible. “Spin” is in. Facts are boring. We need to write the story at the level of the lowest common denominator, and make sure it is splashy and trashy.
without the “refusal of abortion” angle there’s no story, something had to be made up to sell it and voila!
**retractions on the last page of the Saturday home section**
well below the fold, in fine print
Gee a Liberal lying to push her own Ideology to get into the chattering classes. What a shock!!!
Be very careful about casting blame here. Holland indicated that her report had included caveats about unverified statements. No reporter ever controls what an editor does with the text of a piece. And it’s the editor, not the reporter, who writes the headlines.
Balbulican, she’s a bloody liar and was caught.
Scratch a pro-abortionist or a journalist and find the willingness to deceive without apology.
‘Journalists’ are scum.
Why let a few facts get in the way of a good ‘social cause’. Hmmm…. ‘good social cause’? Is that an oxymoron?
CGH: exactly. If you listen the interview, instead of Shaidle/Kate’s attempt to reframe it, you hear a rather different focus.
It’s great fun to see LifeSiteNews pretending to shill for accuracy and balance in reportage, though.
Making stuff up is part and parcel of the abortionist’s battle plan, their fake coat hangers and back ally’s propaganda isn’t cutting it anymore thus they make up stuff.
Sowell: Compared to What?
In my recent austro-libertarian explorations, I’ve encountered this term: The Nirvana Fallacy
On the LEFT capitalism (free markets) is always compared to an impossible ideal, found wanting, and rejected in favour of perfect government solutions (that always fail).
One day I had an epiphany while reading Mises. Mises often wrote that if only politicans could learn that the results of the actions they are proposing would be counter to their objectives we would be so much better off.
Epiphany: But Luddie, they don’t have the good and noble objectives you impute to them!
And this is why the great Murray Rothbard (who towers high above Sowell!) entitled one of his masterworks: Power and Market. Good economics and politics just don’t meld and never will! So mebbe I should spend more time on photography!
No, balbulican, you hear something worse. Kitty Holland framed her articles one way- that a “termination” was asked for and somehow necessary. It turns out she’s an irresponsible journalist (at best). It never occurred to her to check her facts? Or maybe that doesn’t matter?