The anti-human rights organization Live Action has released more Lila Rose videos of their Planned Parenthood “sting” operation. Media Matters documents that the videos are doctored, and says the videos have ended Lisa Rose’s credibility.
If only that were so. If you were getting all of your information about the hoax from mainstream media, you’d probably have a strong impression that Planned Parenthood got caught doing something wrong.
I’ve been checking it out. This Christian Science Monitor story is pretty typical. The headline says “Planned Parenthood Under Fire,” and it’s followed by a blurb saying “Antiabortion activists have released videos showing Planned Parenthood workers allegedly colluding with a man posing as a pimp to exploit underage sex workers.”
How many people really pay attention to “allegedlys”?
The allegations are repeated and elaborated on in the first several paragraphs of the story. However, Christian Science Monitor readers are not told the videos were doctored or that Planned Parenthood notified authorities of a possible sex trafficking ring after the visit by the hoaxers.
In many other newspapers, Planned Parenthood’s side of the story is presented, but you have to read several paragraphs into the story to find it. If you read only the headline and the first paragraph or two, you only hear Live Action’s side. This is sloppy news writing, IMO, but it’s how most news stories are written.
Radio news is even worse; a lot of radio stations are just reporting verbatim what Live Action says.
But there’s something else about the videos that needs to be said. In one of the more recently released videos, the Planned Parenthood employee can be heard telling the “pimp” that what he’s doing is illegal and would have to be reported. Doesn’t that mean Live Action’s own video disproves that Planned Parenthood supports child prostitution? Apparently not; people are linking to the video as “proof” that Planned Parenthood is evil and must be vanquished.
The disconnect, I think, comes from the fact that the woman in the video is not expressing shock or screaming or rending her hair or otherwise reacting to the faux pimp with anything but matter-of-fact calm. She’s just rattling off information, in other words. And when he left, Planned Parenthood says, she reported the hoax visit to her supervisor, who called the police.
What else was she supposed to do? If I’m a woman in a room alone with a man who presents himself to be a dangerous criminal, I would do the same thing. I would stay very calm, tell the guy whatever I think he wants to hear, and then call the police after he has left. If he had been a real criminal, and the woman started screaming at him, he might have reacted violently.
As Gail Collins writes, “there is no way to look good while providing useful information to a self-proclaimed child molester, even if the cops get called. That, presumably, is why Live Action chose the scenario.”
Exactly. What else was she supposed to do? Under that circumstance, unless there happens to be a cop in the next room, when put in that position there is not much else one can do but humor the guy and hope he leaves without hurting anyone. But the people who believe the videos incriminate Planned Parenthood don’t consider that.
Gail Collins also reports on efforts in Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and adds,
The people trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business do not seem concerned about what would happen to the 1.85 million low-income women who get family-planning help and medical care at the clinics each year. It just doesn’t come up. There’s not even a vague contingency plan.
There is no comparable organization to Planned Parenthood, providing the same kind of services on a national basis. If there were, most of the women eligible for Medicaid-financed family-planning assistance wouldn’t have to go without it. In Texas, which has one of the highest teenage birthrates in the country, only about 20 percent of low-income women get that kind of help. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack, and the State Legislature has diverted some of its funding to crisis pregnancy centers, which provide no medical care and tend to be staffed by volunteers dedicated to dissuading women from having abortions.
It’s all about priorities.
In Washington, the new Republican majority that promised to do great things about jobs, jobs, jobs is preparing for hearings on a bill to make it economically impossible for insurance companies to offer policies that cover abortions. And in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, faced with an epic budget crisis that’s left the state’s schools and health care services in crisis, has brought out emergency legislation — requiring mandatory sonograms for women considering abortion.
So in Wingnut World, puppy mills are good and women’s health services are bad. Unreal.
Update: I forgot to mention — this past week Media Matters had a telephone conference for progressive bloggers and media on the Planned Parenthood sting issue. This is a common thing; it’s like a press conference, only cheaper. Usually somebody makes a statement and then takes questions. I get lots of invitations to phone conferences, although I rarely listen in because they eat time and I’d just as soon get the same information in a press release. I suspect the Right does the same thing with its bloggers now and then.
But Breitbart Media is trying to blow up the phone conference into something sinister, implying that those who took part are somehow taking money to promote child prostitution. Weird.
Update: New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion
It’s not just women that get basic health care via Planned Parenthood.
I’m a 49 year old male. My COBRA ran out in December 2008, and since then Planned Parenthood has allowed me to continue to get prescriptions for low grade hypertension. I also was able to get annual blood chemistry (cholesterol, kidney and liver function) checks done. Total cost to me was $15 per visit including lab work. They also renewed my prescription without a visit or even a call.
I will have health insurance again starting with my commencement of a new job this Monday. I’ll be getting a regular physician again, as I do not want to burden their staff for care I can procure via providers in my insurer’s network.
Planned Parenthood will figure prominently in my charitable giving once I’m able to give again. I can say that I’m less likely to have a heart attack as a direct result of them providing basic health care services to me at a subsidized rate.
Here’s a comment that’s worthy of reading
http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010048#1174402
OT, great Sherffius cartoon, If Reagan were a Republican Today.
Well, if you don’t support “‘Planned’ Parenthood,” then you must be for “Whoops! Parenthood…”
They seem to have his underlying belief that no respectable (conservative) white woman would ever need to avail herself of the services of “Planned Parenthood,” or an abortion clinic. That it’s only skanky liberal white women, and non-white ho’s that ever need the services provided there. Only women with no or little morals get into that kind of a situation. You know, “THOSE” women.
I’m sure that no respectable white conservative woman ever got pregnant while having an affair, or found that her young daughter had been “Bristolized” by her teenage boyfriend. She never hides that she takes the pill because she they can’t afford another child, or sneaks off before sex with hubby to pop in an IUD, because the heartless bastard beats her and the kid’s and she doesn’t dare bring another one into this world. Nope, never happens.
Republican men might be shocked that not every woman that walks into places like that is a registered “D,” or a sexually promiscuous woman of color, or an illegal alien. If the conservative women were honest, the men might be shocked at how many women, after protesting in front of it, come back to the clinic to have an abortion for herself or a family member, and then is right back in line to protest the next day. How many hide pills and IUD’s. But, oh no, not them! They’re not “THOSE” kinds of women.
No one’s ever sexually harassed or abused, and no one’s ever raped – ‘the slutty tramps are asking for it!’ Unless it’s by a non-white male perp.
These are some mighty sick and rightious people. But, we knew that already.
As for media coverage, and not just about this, but in general, I’ve written about this before, I was taught in college journalism classes that you had to have the “who, what, when, where, why, and how’s” in the first paragraph or two. Not anymore. I almost can’t read any newspaper article anymore, sometimes not even the ones by the very best reporters, without getting pissed off at either the lack of information, the placement of it, or that it seems more propaganistic than informative. And I sometimes wonder why? Is it that the reporter is bad, lazy, or the reporter may have had an agenda? Possible. But, I think it may have a lot to do with the fact that many editors may have agenda’s, for, or set by, their corporate masters, if not for themselves – and whats good for the masters, is good for the editor, no? I don’t know this for a fact, but I have my suspicions. And if that does happen, then why don’t we hear the writers complain? Or even the editors? Well, have you looked at the number of jobs lost in that industry? You’d grin and near it too.
Also, before, when the story appeared, the headline sometimes had little or nothing to do with what the article was about – that was expected, it was written to get your attention. Now, it almost seems as if the article was written to match the headline. I don’t know, it’s probably just me.
The whole journalism business has gone completely down the tubes. And I’ll be damned if I know what to do about it – except read blogs like this one for my information.
I’d love to go back to reading newpapers like I did before, when I used to get all 4 NY City dailies – Times, Daily News, Newday, and the Post. But I don’t. I just read the Times online – and even that’s now rare. The taint of Judy Miller is still there for me.
I don’t want my news slanted to the left anymore than I want it slanted to the right. I want a straight story, giving me the “5 ‘w’s’ and an ‘h.’ No BS, no propaganda. I don’t see many more like that anymore. I think others have noticed it too, and stopped buying them.
And they sit ,and ponder, wondering why newspapers are dying?
Oh, and don’t even get me started on Network and Cable TV News.
That’s at least a 10,000 word diatribe! Maybe a whole book.
wmd,
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gail Collins is correct, but there’s something else… I don’t know how to put this, but, this is less journalism and more human experimentation. If a psychologist did this, they’d have strict requirements on what they had to do to ensure confidentiality, and protect the well-being of the people they were experimented on.
While that can’t be government enforced on journalism, the journalism industry should adopt some kind of guidelines so that, if they aren’t followed, it will at least be noted.
“this video was collected by deceptive means; it may have been edited, and the raw data – number of times this sting was tried, number of times it failed, etc. – have not been released. We’re reporting on it because you all want to see it, but please remember that this kind of video is known to result in disinformation being spread.”
To me, the sloppy journalism is writing a news story in a way that leaves vital information out of the first paragraph. Journalists used to be taught to write a synopsis of the entire story at the very beginning of the story, ideally in the first sentence, in the assumption that most readers won’t go past the first paragraph. Everything you really needed to know was at the very top of the story. More information was added in descending order of importance, so that if somebody at the copy desk chopped off the last paragraph or two to make the text fit the type column, it didn’t damage the integrity of the entire story.
So, using the old style of news writing, the information about the allegations against Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood’s defense of itself would be right at the beginning of the story, so at least readers would be aware there is reason to doubt the video. Instead, the news stories I have seen present Live Action’s allegations for the first several paragraphs, and only those who keep reading learn that there is another side. But the enormous majority of people are going to read only the headline and the first paragraph or two.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The Mahablog » Planned Parenthood and the Propaganda Game -- Topsy.com
Herm. What I mean, when talking about human experimentation, is the use of hidden video cameras with deception. It’s not ordinary journalism. And, I think it crosses an ethical line. If it were science, it would absolutely positively cross an ethical line – there’s no question about that, and it would render any result unusable and untouchable.
But as “journalism” it should still cross an ethical line.
I also agree with your statement that the reporting on the story doesn’t include the proper information in the first paragraph. But my complaint is that there should be some set of rules for this kind of “investigation” and if those rules aren’t followed, ethical news outlets should refuse to air the videos or discuss the results without some form of disclaimer.
What Live Action did isn’t journalism at all, and I hope Planned Parenthood socks Live Action with the mother of all defamation suits.
I realize that sometimes journalists go undercover to get news stories, and this is a controversial thing within the profession. But undercover journalism strictly observes; it doesn’t try to manipulate the story. So, it’s one thing for a journalist to get a job at a meat packing plant to observe and expose unsanitary conditions. It’s something else for a journalist to deliberately sabotage normal operations in order to create something to be exposed.
What Live Action did was not journalism. No way, no how, not even close, and I don’t think even the lamebrains who wrote the news stories about it consider the videos to be journalism.
That’s pretty much what I said; the news stories about this video should have been written in a way that lets the reader know the videos are not to be taken at face value. And there really are, or used to be, professional standards within journalism that would have called for that. But a lot of the old rules are no longer being observed.
As far as showing the video is concerned, back in the day professional standards would have called for including some kind of disclaimer with the video if it were shown, but again, the old rules are no longer being observed.
Thanks C U. been a long time coming.
Off topic, but this fellow’s blog is worth reading and well footnoted. He deserves more readership.
http://www.davidcoates.net/
We have “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” here in NC. The sonographers are minimally trained to show that the fetus has a beating heart. The purpose of this is to dissuade the pregnant woman from considering an abortion. Sonographers don’t interpret sonograms, but a referral to a radiologist is made and the radiologist will nterpret it. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not make these referrals, so the woman will believe that she has had a sonogram and normal follow up. She hasn’t and the deception could cause her to face unforeseen complications. This is unethical, in my view.
The days of the “Fairness Doctrine” look better and better.
Local media often bungles these kind of stories even worse than the national media, but the NBC affiliate in Richmond did a pretty good job with this one. Early on in the story the reporter noted that their own legal analyst said Planned Parenthood followed the law.
They later put him on camera to make a point that I haven’t seen made elsewhere. The Planned Parenthood employee, by acting professionally, likely did all she could to encourage the “pimp” to bring the “sex slaves” into the clinic where they could get help.
Why shouldn’t the American Taliban trash Planned Parenthood? They basically hate any organization, Gov’t or private, that actually HELPS PEOPLE.
‘Hates any organization that actually helps people ”
You see ‘God ‘ is supposed to do that. Or some self rightious do gooder who needs his good deed of the day matterial.
*AH!* Thank you. That summarizes my confusion over this issue better than my meandering about how it strikes me as being akin to psychological human experimentation. Yes, I *knew* that – journalism is *reporting* the story, not *creating* it. And I’m still a bit stunned that this isn’t more widely included in the stories about it.
Mind you, I also think people have a right to not-be-fucked-with – there should be some right to not having someone play an Evil Candid Camera joke on you and then broadcast it.
Seems to me that this would fall under defamation or libel or some such, especially since the videos obviously are doctored.