The Coffeespy

One of the reasons I’m usually not considered a traditional conservative is my libertarian take on most social issues, abortion being one of them.  I’m from the camp that abortion is a choice open to a woman.  That said, I hope a woman is moral enough to make the right choice.  I’m not so much for a woman’s choice as I am against having an option legislated away.  Being a man, I take a man’s view that the ‘he’ portion of the equation should have some say but until there is an alternative to a responsibility-bankrupt possessor of a womb, they get their say over it.  Basically, a person has a right as an American to be a morally-vacuous prick.  I’ll tolerate you (meaning I won’t destroy you, NOT that I’ll accept you) but I’ll also let you know what a waste of life I think you are… that sort of thing.

What the pro-choice crowd (another term I’m not going to debate, I’m using it so we can at least talk about it) doesn’t need is crap like the NY Times piece covered by Michelle Malkin.  Rather than talk about the founding fathers’ desire to keep government out of the private lives of people, the Times has decided to create a sensationalized piece based on sources they know will have biased reporting.  Malkin covers the particulars in her usual thorough and witty style.

Which is worse, I wonder: a journalist using a real source they know to be lying or a journalist using a source that, well, looks like they made up?  The New York Times can use the terms like “experts” and “officials” without letting the reader know they’re taking a slant by covering slanted sources while the AP is made to look like morons because, after “investigating” allegations, they still haven’t produced an Iraqi police captain who has managed to source several stories.  The Winds of Change has a new update (or lack thereof) on the APs re-imagining of “Car 54, Where Are You?” set to an Iraqi backdrop.  Bottom line: the AP defense is basically, “Shut up, na na na na na, I can’t hear you.”

The thing is, in both the abortion story and Iraq reporting, the press is actually hurting its own cause.  When they report versions of the facts, instead of the facts, people begin to question and debate the press instead of the issue.  The Ace of Spades says it quite well:

We do need a vigilant press in this country to press uncomfortable questions to those in power. But if the press itself continues indulging in the same deny and lie spin cycle as any other organization caught dirty, how can it act in this role?

I started this blog because what I read in the paper rarely stood up to scrutiny.  Having been a low-level journalist myself I know how it’s supposed to be written.  Gather facts.  Order the facts by importance.  Rewrite them in that order, editing for flow and cohesiveness.  End of story.  It’s not that hard.  If any jackass with an internet connection can refute professional press reporting, it’s time to turn that ever-watchful eye upon the watchers themselves.