The PP outcome and the 1st Amendment

[albeto.]

I disagree with the premise that this case has scary implications for actual journos.

 

 

Me too. That's like saying the Bundys circus has scary implications for actual peaceful protests. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Suit yourself. I'm not antichoice, but I am morally opposed to abortion, and be that as it may, the journalists' reporting was accurate.

Where are you getting you information?

 

 

I mean specific news sources.

[albeto.]

Sure. My point was that if they are professing Christians--and I have no idea--they should be aware of the strong terms in which the New Testament condemns lying. I wasn't (and wouldn't) say or imply that only Christians are or should be honest.

 

I understand your point, and I responded that this point is, predictably, irrelevant. 

 

It matters little to me what the current view of the American public on this issue is. Popular opinion does not and should not determine what is right and what is wrong. I don't believe any innocent human being--regardless of their level of development, their environment, or their degree of dependence-- should be deprived of their right to life.

 

It may not matter to you, but it's a motivating factor in this event, I'll wager. One side of this argument is finding that despite all its heartfelt beliefs, the laws simply aren't favoring their wishes. The hope was to show these are more than religious wishes to be favored, but illegal crimes to be exposed and stopped. That would certainly influence law, right? The problem is, that's a complete lie. And they got spanked for it. As well they should. 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by albeto.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Suit yourself.  I'm not antichoice, but I am morally opposed to abortion, and be that as it may, the journalists' reporting was accurate. 

 

But omitting the fact they were doing something legal is intentionally misleading.

 

Admittedly I was dismayed by what I heard before knowing the details.  The reporters attempted to make it seem like PP's main business objectives were selling aborted fetuses.  They also made it seem as if workers at PP attempted to find ways to make more money or drum up more business for their fetus selling services.  But ultimately that isn't quite the truth.

 

If they mention they sold fetuses without mentioning they did so legally that is lying.  I assumed what they were doing was illegal.  Why else would they omit that?  They wanted people to be outraged and they wanted people to think PP was engaging in illegal practices.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The allegation that it was dishonest is a dishonest one itself. 

It's pretty much the only possible thing PP could do to even hope to recover their base, but it's disgusting and incorrect.

If they weren't selling baby parts, they wouldn't have had to stop.  Which they announced with great fanfare. 

Go to the original source material, you'll be amazed.

 

Considering none of the numerous state investigations have supported the claims made by the (lol) "journalists", I don't believe you have a grasp on what is factual and what is not.

[Carol in Cal.]

  The reporters attempted to make it seem like PP's main business objectives were selling aborted fetuses. 

I don't know what leads you to that conclusion.  It was not something that I observed at all.

There are only a few PP sites that deal in these organs, and that's well known and unhidden.

 

I did not quite follow the rest of your post, I think that possibly you meant to say illegal instead of saying legal once or twice perhaps?  Anyway, that's why I'm not replying to it.

 

Look, in general I think that PP does some good work and some stuff that is despicable, and some of the specifics of organ collection from fetuses with their hearts beating should really give anyone pause. 

 

But in this thread the larger question is whether or not there is a threat to freedom of the press inherent in this particular set of indictments, and I think that there is, and that the freedom of the press was already kind of reeling before this even happened, and that as Americans we should watch out for that.  I'm all about preserving the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't know what leads you to that conclusion.  It was not something that I observed at all.

There are only a few PP sites that deal in these organs, and that's well known and unhidden.

 

I did not quite follow the rest of your post, I think that possibly you meant to say illegal instead of saying legal once or twice perhaps?  Anyway, that's why I'm not replying to it.

 

Look, in general I think that PP does some good work and some stuff that is despicable, and some of the specifics of organ collection from fetuses with their hearts beating should really give anyone pause. 

 

But in this thread the larger question is whether or not there is a threat to freedom of the press inherent in this particular set of indictments, and I think that there is, and that the freedom of the press was already kind of reeling before this even happened, and that as Americans we should watch out for that.  I'm all about preserving the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment.

 

I heard selected audio pieces,...  That was a long time ago, but I thought oh gosh this is terrible.  I can't believe PP would do that. 

 

I'll have to see if I can find it.  Probably it is on the NPR site. 

 

Yes I probably screwed it up.  Doing too many things at once. 

 

Well I don't think there is anywhere that says the press is excused from breaking the law.  So if by not allowing them to break the law we are threatening their freedom then hey what can be said about that.  I just think it's not the biggest problem in this case. 

[MSNative]

Interesting article from the UK

"“It seems to me that it would be prudent to have a policy that sets out in one place the factors that prosecutors will take into account when considering whether or not to prosecute journalists acting in the course of their work as journalists,†he told the inquiry.

The guidelines would apply to offences committed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which covers phone hacking and undercover surveillance; the Bribery Act; the Data Protection Act, which covers the obtaining of medical records and other private information; and the Computer Misuse Act, which outlaws email hacking."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9070654/Journalists-who-break-law-to-expose-injustice-will-not-be-prosecuted.html

 

Definitely raises even more questions.

[MSNative]

I agree. That is a critical question. And it brings up the issue that a previous poster mentioned. Defining "doing journalism" narrowly could be used to shut down less mainstream outlets.

Edited February 1, 2016 by MSNative

[PineFarmMom]

The allegation that it was dishonest is a dishonest one itself.

It's pretty much the only possible thing PP could do to even hope to recover their base, but it's disgusting and incorrect.

If they weren't selling baby parts, they wouldn't have had to stop. Which they announced with great fanfare.

Go to the original source material, you'll be amazed.

This!!!

[MSNative]

True.

 

I do think there are practices and approaches that define journalism, even if it isn't mainstream.

 

I don't know how or even if the law defines journalism by those practices however.

I don't either. Clearly there need to be limits and some sort of definition or as the original article stated anyone could invade your privacy and call it journalism.

What do you think are some practices and approaches that define journalism? I think it would be interesting to come up with a list.

[Murphy101]

Interesting article from the UK

"“It seems to me that it would be prudent to have a policy that sets out in one place the factors that prosecutors will take into account when considering whether or not to prosecute journalists acting in the course of their work as journalists,†he told the inquiry.

The guidelines would apply to offences committed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which covers phone hacking and undercover surveillance; the Bribery Act; the Data Protection Act, which covers the obtaining of medical records and other private information; and the Computer Misuse Act, which outlaws email hacking."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9070654/Journalists-who-break-law-to-expose-injustice-will-not-be-prosecuted.html

 

Definitely raises even more questions.

I can call myself a writer even if I never get paid for a single word or even if I never get published.

 

This is true of journalist as well.

 

In some cases journalists do have to take some gruff wrist slaps to get the truth out there so to speak.

 

For the most part, I think these charges against those who taped PP is trumped up from PP to try to salvage their image and more importantly their funding.

 

If the best comeback they can manage against charges like purposely changing medical procedures so they can get the best baby part harvests is that the guy they told it to was using a false creditial or they would have never actually said that to him - well count me unimpressed with their defense and further disgusted by them.

 

I disagree that the legality of their actions is the only factor. Journalists often investigate perfectly legal actions of individuals or corporations that are or would be considered shady and unethical if people knew about it and would want steps taken to make those actions no longer legal.

[Murphy101]

I don't either. Clearly there need to be limits and some sort of definition or as the original article stated anyone could invade your privacy and call it journalism.

What do you think are some practices and approaches that define journalism? I think it would be interesting to come up with a list.

I think Sadie already said it.

 

Documentation and verification. It's kind of a double edged sword sometimes too. Doing that both protects a journalist and makes them vulnerable bc they have to protect their sources too. Not just people, but literally their documentation materials.

[Murphy101]

But omitting the fact they were doing something legal is intentionally misleading.

 

Admittedly I was dismayed by what I heard before knowing the details. The reporters attempted to make it seem like PP's main business objectives were selling aborted fetuses. They also made it seem as if workers at PP attempted to find ways to make more money or drum up more business for their fetus selling services. But ultimately that isn't quite the truth.

 

If they mention they sold fetuses without mentioning they did so legally that is lying. I assumed what they were doing was illegal. Why else would they omit that? They wanted people to be outraged and they wanted people to think PP was engaging in illegal practices.

You and many others presumed it was illegal because otherwise our thought process is, "OMG?! It's legal to sell baby parts?! wth?!"

 

Ignorance of the law is no defense. They wanted to expose a disgusting and deplorable practice, legal or not.

 

And also, maybe the shock that it's legal will make people support legislation to make it illegal.

 

I'm doubt it bc I'm in a bad mood with people today and not feeling very optimistic for humanity.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Murphy101

[MSNative]

Code of ethics is probably a good place to start.

 

http://www.gwb.com.au/99a/ethics.html

 

This is one element that I think is pertinent to the topic at hand:

 

Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis.

 

I don't think journalists are saints, and I bet plenty of journos skate the line between ethical and not - because they're people, not perfection robots - but still, it's a starting point.

Thank you for posting this. I think it is an excellent list for discussion.

 

If we used that list there would be no undercover journalism.

"To use only fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures and documents.

 

Always to reveal his identity as a representative of the press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication."

 

So if we think there is value in undercover reporting, then we would have to change those.

 

Eta: Sadie I have no idea what happened to your text in my quote. I did not intentionally change the font size to discount what you said. My iPad is just being weird.

Edited February 1, 2016 by MSNative

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You and many others presumed it was illegal because otherwise our thought process is, "OMG?! It's legal to sell baby parts?! wth?!"

 

Ignorance of the law is no defense. They wanted to expose a disgusting and deplorable practice, legal or not.

 

And also, maybe the shock that it's legal will make people support legislation to make it illegal.

 

I'm doubt it bc I'm in a bad mood with people today and not feeling very optimistic for humanity.

It isn't legal to sell baby parts. And PP doesn't do so, which has been shown time and time again.

[MSNative]

I also like this as a practice, the discipline of verification.

 

its intellectual foundation rests on three core concepts – transparency, humility, and originality.

 

The linked is an interesting read.

I love what was said in that that link. And way too many journalists do not do that! Instead they focus on building a narrative. Definitely think the media would be more respected if it was more just the facts and less here's the narrative.

 

Narrative journalism reminded me of the UVA rape case. Interestingly the professional journalist in that case failed because she too was passionately trying to prove something she believed. It's hard. Of course journalists would prefer to write about something they care deeply about and yet that makes them much more vulnerable to skirting ethical lines (if not just outright crossing them)

Sorry. I know this is a bit off the topic.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rolling-stone-and-the-temptations-of-narrative-journalism

Edited February 1, 2016 by MSNative

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

It isn't legal to sell baby parts. And PP doesn't do so, which has been shown time and time again.

 

It seems people keep missing this point.

[Pam in CT]

re journalist standards starting with ethics:

 

Code of ethics is probably a good place to start.

 

http://www.gwb.com.au/99a/ethics.html

 

This is one element that I think is pertinent to the topic at hand:

 

Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis.

 

I don't think journalists are saints, and I bet plenty of journos skate the line between ethical and not - because they're people, not perfection robots - but still, it's a starting point.

I agree that ethics are a good starting point -- with the caveat that here as elsewhere, ethics and law are often (appropriately) related, but are not identical.  (The idea that "just because something is legal to print, doesn't mean it's a good idea to print" being one of many examples)

 

 

 

Thank you for posting this. I think it is an excellent list for discussion.

If we used that list there would be no undercover journalism.
"To use only fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures and documents.

Always to reveal his identity as a representative of the press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication."

So if we think there is value in undercover reporting, then we would have to change those.

Eta: Sadie I have no idea what happened to your text in my quote. I did not intentionally change the font size to discount what you said. My iPad is just being weird.

Sadie's link is for an Australian media society (which makes sense as she's Australian!).  Media norms do vary across countries -- the UK libel environment, for example, is famously more restrictive than in the US.

 

I think (?) this is the parallel code for US media.  Its language is a bit looser on undercover reporting:

 

 

– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public. 

 

which would seem to allow it under some circumstances.

 

 

 

In any event, while such voluntary association codes are useful as a jumping-off point for thinking issues like those in this thread through, they are not identical to law.  Which, here, is for better or worse a patchwork of federal and state-by-state rules.

 

[MercyA]

It seems people keep missing this point.

 

Not at all. Please see these documents. Planned Parenthood claims they are paid fees for the collection and processing of body parts. However, these documents demonstrate that the companies paying these fees itemize charges for processing, packaging, and shipping separately from the charges for the body parts themselves. Planned Parenthood is also paid more for more valuable organs. 

 

Honestly, I don't find this facet of PP particularly shocking in light of their overall practices.

[Valley Girl]

 

 They wanted to expose a disgusting and deplorable practice, legal or not.

 

And also, maybe the shock that it's legal will make people support legislation to make it illegal.

 

 

I think this can be a legitimate journalistic goal, too. If we set aside PP for a moment, it's easier to see. Bet there are plenty of perfectly legal activities that, if it were understood what was involved, would make people change their minds about them. For instance, the food industry and how it treats animals.

[Carol in Cal.]

Honestly they kind of remind me of Nellie Bly.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Not at all. Please see these documents. Planned Parenthood claims they are paid fees for the collection and processing of body parts. However, these documents demonstrate that the companies paying these fees itemize charges for processing, packaging, and shipping separately from the charges for the body parts themselves. Planned Parenthood is also paid more for more valuable organs.

 

Honestly, I don't find this facet of PP particularly shocking in light of their overall practices.

 

I assume you can provide a more neutral source?

[albeto.]

Not at all. Please see these documents. Planned Parenthood claims they are paid fees for the collection and processing of body parts. However, these documents demonstrate that the companies paying these fees itemize charges for processing, packaging, and shipping separately from the charges for the body parts themselves. Planned Parenthood is also paid more for more valuable organs. 

 

Honestly, I don't find this facet of PP particularly shocking in light of their overall practices.

 

The collection and sale of fetal tissue for scientific research is not illegal. PP is not conducting illegal operations. That's the point that keeps getting missed. This post is an example of the point being missed, presumably in favor of opening up the discussion to the "shocking" services PP does provide, despite nearly everyone's attempt to not open that can of worms.  

[MercyA]

I assume you can provide a more neutral source?

 

I understand. I'm an NPR listener, not a Fox News fan, okay?  :)

 

However, they're the ones who did the investigative work. Who else do you think is likely to have and be willing to release documents from inside Planned Parenthood, StemExpress, and Advanced Bioscience Resources? I assume if the documents were fabricated the Center for Medical Progress would be forced to take them off their website. Furthermore, I haven't seen anyone claim that the documents aren't authentic.

[zoobie]

I can call myself a writer even if I never get paid for a single word or even if I never get published.

 

This is true of journalist as well.

 

In some cases journalists do have to take some gruff wrist slaps to get the truth out there so to speak.

 

For the most part, I think these charges against those who taped PP is trumped up from PP to try to salvage their image and more importantly their funding.

 

If the best comeback they can manage against charges like purposely changing medical procedures so they can get the best baby part harvests is that the guy they told it to was using a false creditial or they would have never actually said that to him - well count me unimpressed with their defense and further disgusted by them.

 

I disagree that the legality of their actions is the only factor. Journalists often investigate perfectly legal actions of individuals or corporations that are or would be considered shady and unethical if people knew about it and would want steps taken to make those actions no longer legal.

The activists were indicted by a grand jury. The grand jury's investigation was ordered by the governor and lieutenant governor of Texas, who promised to shut down PP in their state. The district attorney who led the grand jury was appointed by former governor Rick Perry. There's simply no way Planned Parenthood could have trumped up these charges. The fact that the grand jury could find NOTHING remotely indictable is remarkable. Doubly so given the partisan atmosphere and political triumph that would have resulted. For this grand jury under this district attorney in this state to have instead indicted the activists is huge. Yooge huge.

[swimmermom3]

Interesting article. It raises some good questions about the broader implications. I'm also glad the questions were raised by people on the opposite side of the ideological issue. One thing I think people need to wrestle with as they consider the authors' points is whether or not their feelings on the issue would change depending on what the target organization is. If you support PP, would your feelings in the same scenario change if were the NRA or some other controversial organization you dislike that was targeted? If you don't support PP, would your feelings change if the targeted organization were one you supported? It was a little eye-opening, to me at least, to look at the question from both ends because I definitely "felt" different about depending on which side I took. And feelings shouldn't be a factor in this issue because the first amendment and the ability of journalists to expose public wrongdoing of whatever sort is important to everyone.

 

I have been thinking some more about what you wrote here.

 

I don't love the NRA.  If someone broke laws while conducting "investigative journalism" that turned out to be misleading and resulted in a significant loss in funding for the NRA and caused congressmen to continue to cite the bad information in order to change legislation, I wouldn't be happy. Those videos were very damaging and they were fraudulent.

 

[Bluegoat]

But omitting the fact they were doing something legal is intentionally misleading.

 

Admittedly I was dismayed by what I heard before knowing the details.  The reporters attempted to make it seem like PP's main business objectives were selling aborted fetuses.  They also made it seem as if workers at PP attempted to find ways to make more money or drum up more business for their fetus selling services.  But ultimately that isn't quite the truth.

 

If they mention they sold fetuses without mentioning they did so legally that is lying.  I assumed what they were doing was illegal.  Why else would they omit that?  They wanted people to be outraged and they wanted people to think PP was engaging in illegal practices.

 

I'd say it's borderline, myself.  I can see why people might want to give people the information in a more raw way, first.  The logic would be, and I think there is some real psychological truth to it, that if it is really a horrible thing to trade in fetus parts, the legality of it isn't really the issue.  In the same way, someone who smuggles footage out of a factory slaughterhouse isn't necessarily concerned with presenting information about the legality of the behavior - they want people to see it and respond to it in a very visceral and immediate way.

 

Putting it first in the context of a legal activity can, I think, mute that first response - we start to create a sort of psychological barrier.

 

That being said, I think that it is a bad idea to manipulate people in that way, at least not without being very carefull to scrupulosly fill out the whole picture in short order.  It's one thing to say - now look at what is going on with this practice in light of how wrong it seems in itself, what has happened - and another thing to  allow people to think that the whole scenario is some kind of nefarious conspiracy. 

 

It is certainly common though - all kinds of documentaries try and get away with that kind of manipulation or just leaving out things that would put what they are saying in a more complex light.  Roger Moore is notorious for it, Forks Over Knives comes to mind as tending in that direction, that creationist documentary with the Nazi footage...  all of them seem to be fairly respected by their target audiences though.

 

It seems to be very typical of the pro-life lobby to do things that way, and it seems very counter-productive to me, there would be much more effective ways to use footage like that with more integrity.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Bluegoat

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The activists were indicted by a grand jury. The grand jury's investigation was ordered by the governor and lieutenant governor of Texas, who promised to shut down PP in their state. The district attorney who led the grand jury was appointed by former governor Rick Perry. There's simply no way Planned Parenthood could have trumped up these charges. The fact that the grand jury could find NOTHING remotely indictable is remarkable. Doubly so given the partisan atmosphere and political triumph that would have resulted. For this grand jury under this district attorney in this state to have instead indicted the activists is huge. Yooge huge.

Anyone saying that PP can "trump up" charges is simply demonstrating a dismal understanding of our legal system.

[Ravin]

I think the article fails to make a solid argument against prosecution of journalists for breaking laws not targeted at speech for its content, or at all. The Supreme Court's distinctions are not new. Whether something is a "matter of public concern" is a well-established concept in areas such as tort law for libel/slander. The standard for what constitutes libel or slander is higher if the allegedly libelous/slanderous speech touches a matter of public concern or is about a public figure--which makes it harder to sue journalists just because they say unpleasant things about famous people or topics of public concern that are mere opinion or actually true.

 

This is why Trevor Noah can repeatedly say that Donald Trump wants to bang his daughter without getting sued.

 

The problem of audiences not being able to tell fact from opinion, or news from entertainment, and that inability being encouraged for profit, is hurting journalism far more than prosecuting activists for breaking laws (and other examples given in the article besides the Pro-life activists include animal rights activists exposing corporate farm practices and abuses).

 

One should be at least as safe from the Fourth Estate on one's private property as one is from the other three. The Constitution doesn't protect businesses' or people's privacy from journalists. That is one of the things the general police power of the states is for.

[swimmermom3]

They released videos.  That's not 'making stuff up.'

 

I could release an audio segment that featured President George W. Bush saying, "I hate the blacks."   How would that have been received? What would most people have thought he meant?  The audio is genuine. Is it the whole truth?

 

What if I add in the video that shows President Bush staring at his handful of jelly beans that are predominantly black?  Omission can significantly change context and perspective.

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I could release an audio segment that featured President George W. Bush saying, "I hate the blacks."   How would that have been received? What would most people have thought he meant?  The audio is genuine. Is it the whole truth?

 

What if I add in the video that shows President Bush staring at his handful of jelly beans that are predominantly black?  Omission can significantly change context and perspective.

This is a good example, but it's not a good analogy for what happened here.

 

Here, we have videos of conversations in which PP personnel described that when their abortionists know that they are seeking certain parts to be delivered intact, they try to crush the babies elsewhere so as to preserve those parts.  There is no excerpt from that that has a fully different meaning.

 

Or for another example, we have a former employee of a PP customer describing being trained to obtain intact brains, describing how her trainer taps the baby's chest and his heart starts beating again, and then she tells her to start the cut at the chin and go up the face to the top of the head to free up the brains for removal.  Again, there is no excerpt from that that would have a fully different meaning.

 

In both of these cases there is no change of context that would give these another meaning.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[debinindy]

This is a good example, but it's not a good analogy for what happened here.

 

Here, we have videos of conversations in which PP personnel described that when their abortionists know that they are seeking certain parts to be delivered intact, they try to crush the babies elsewhere so as to preserve those parts.  There is no excerpt from that that has a fully different meaning.

 

Or for another example, we have a former employee of a PP customer describing being trained to obtain intact brains, describing how her trainer taps the baby's chest and his heart starts beating again, and then she tells her to start the cut at the chin and go up the face to the top of the head to free up the brains for removal.  Again, there is no excerpt from that that would have a fully different meaning.

 

In both of these cases there is no change of context that would give these another meaning.

Sick Sick Sick...how anyone cannot see how disgusting and barbaric this is is beyond me.

 

Sorry this will prob. get the thread shut down...I can't believe we do this to other human beings!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is a good example, but it's not a good analogy for what happened here.

 

Here, we have videos of conversations in which PP personnel described that when their abortionists know that they are seeking certain parts to be delivered intact, they try to crush the babies elsewhere so as to preserve those parts.  There is no excerpt from that that has a fully different meaning.

 

Or for another example, we have a former employee of a PP customer describing being trained to obtain intact brains, describing how her trainer taps the baby's chest and his heart starts beating again, and then she tells her to start the cut at the chin and go up the face to the top of the head to free up the brains for removal.  Again, there is no excerpt from that that would have a fully different meaning.

 

In both of these cases there is no change of context that would give these another meaning.

 

None of which is illegal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sick Sick Sick...how anyone cannot see how disgusting and barbaric this is is beyond me.

 

Sorry this will prob. get the thread shut down...I can't believe we do this to other human beings!

 

Obviously differing views on when life begins.  It shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

[debinindy]

Obviously differing views on when life begins.  It shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

 

It's not a difficult concept to grasp...it's a human being and they want to harvest it's brain...sick!

[PineFarmMom]

Obviously differing views on when life begins. It shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

No, not difficult at all for those with no conscience!! It is despicable and evil!!

[MercyA]

Sick Sick Sick...how anyone cannot see how disgusting and barbaric this is is beyond me....I can't believe we do this to other human beings!

 

As the Preacher wrote, there is nothing new under the sun. :( 

 

God have mercy on us all.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not a difficult concept to grasp...it's a human being and they want to harvest it's brain...sick!

 

Then why do you pretend to not know why the other side doesn't see it the same as you do?

And whether a fetus is a human being is the point of contention.

Edited February 2, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[swimmermom3]

I can call myself a writer even if I never get paid for a single word or even if I never get published.

 

This is true of journalist as well.

 

In some cases journalists do have to take some gruff wrist slaps to get the truth out there so to speak.

 

For the most part, I think these charges against those who taped PP is trumped up from PP to try to salvage their image and more importantly their funding.

 

If the best comeback they can manage against charges like purposely changing medical procedures so they can get the best baby part harvests is that the guy they told it to was using a false creditial or they would have never actually said that to him - well count me unimpressed with their defense and further disgusted by them.

 

I disagree that the legality of their actions is the only factor. Journalists often investigate perfectly legal actions of individuals or corporations that are or would be considered shady and unethical if people knew about it and would want steps taken to make those actions no longer legal.

 

I am pro-choice and not a fan of abortion, but then I don't know anyone IRL who is "Rah, rah, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread." I am a huge, in your face, use the damn birth control type of person.

 

That said, if I were an investigative journalist, I would have approached the story by being very up front about the critical points such as legality, the number of PP that are involved and an explanation about paying for transporting tissue or whatever the payment was supposed to be for. 

 

"All of this  is legal, but here is why you the American people should be bothered by this."

 

And I'll admit it, there are aspects here that bother me.  If Daileden had been up front, I think many people and not just on the conservative side would still have been upset.  It's just my conjecture, but I don't think he needed to use omission to make his case. All it did was muck with his credibility. It's also things like taking the photo of a stillborn fetus from someone's Facebook page and representing it as an aborted fetus or utilizing footage from a outside source and representing it as having taken place at PP that are bothersome.

 

Will the indictments create a chilling effect?  Usually I would say "yes," but having spent the past month following the Oregon standoff, I feel as though  there are a growing number of Americans who are so sure  that their way is the right way, that laws are meaningless and they are only too happy to break them because they are wearing their "I am special; you can't arrest me" shoes.

 

[swimmermom3]

You and many others presumed it was illegal because otherwise our thought process is, "OMG?! It's legal to sell baby parts?! wth?!"

 

Ignorance of the law is no defense. They wanted to expose a disgusting and deplorable practice, legal or not.

 

And also, maybe the shock that it's legal will make people support legislation to make it illegal.

 

I'm doubt it bc I'm in a bad mood with people today and not feeling very optimistic for humanity.

 

:grouphug:Sorry, M. There is still a lot of good happening out there - on both sides of the fence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am pro-choice and not a fan of abortion, but then I don't know anyone IRL who is "Rah, rah, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread." I am a huge, in your face, use the damn birth control type of person.

 

That said, if I were an investigative journalist, I would have approached the story by being very up front about the critical points such as legality, the number of PP that are involved and an explanation about paying for transporting tissue or whatever the payment was supposed to be for. 

 

"All of this  is legal, but here is why you the American people should be bothered by this."

 

And I'll admit it, there are aspects here that bother me.  If Daileden had been up front, I think many people and not just on the conservative side would still have been upset.  It's just my conjecture, but I don't think he needed to use omission to make his case. All it did was muck with his credibility. It's also things like taking the photo of a stillborn fetus from someone's Facebook page and representing it as an aborted fetus or utilizing footage from a outside source and representing it as having taken place at PP that are bothersome.

 

Will the indictments create a chilling effect?  Usually I would say "yes," but having spent the past month following the Oregon standoff, I feel as though  there are a growing number of Americans who are so sure  that their way is the right way, that laws are meaningless and they are only too happy to break them because they are wearing their "I am special; you can't arrest me" shoes.

 

 

Had the (lol) "journalist" been truthful, they wouldn't have been able to spark the outrage and fuel the outrageous claims that still persist.  The point of the lies was quite simply to create a political environment that would get PP defunded.

 

 

[debinindy]

Then why do you pretend to not know why the other side doesn't see it the same as you do?

And whether a fetus is a human being is the point of contention.

 

I am not pretending anything...disagree all you want...they are harvesting brains and other organs...not masses of cells.

[albeto.]

debinindy, would you please consider starting a new thread to explore your opinions. People would like to continue discussing the journalism issue, and continued comments about abortion will likely get the thread shut down. That's not fair to those who are playing by the rules, even when that takes considerable effort to sit on fingers to do so.

 

 

[swimmermom3]

Had the (lol) "journalist" been truthful, they wouldn't have been able to spark the outrage and fuel the outrageous claims that still persist.  The point of the lies was quite simply to create a political environment that would get PP defunded.

 

 

I really am not so sure on that. I think graphic depictions like those that Carol in CA wrote in a previous post  bother a lot people. 

 

ETA:  with regards to standards, this is from the Oregon Code of Ethics for Journalism:

 

I.

Sincerity; Truth

The foundation of ethical journalism is sincerity. The sincere journalist will

be honest alike in his purposes and in his writings. To the best of his

capacity to ascertain truth, he will always be truthful. It is his attitude

toward truth that distinguishes the ethical from the unethical writer. It is

naturally not possible that all writing can be without error; but it can always

be without deliberate error. There is no place in journalism for the

dissembler; the distorter; the prevaricator; the suppresor; or the dishonest

thinker.

The first section of this code therefore provides that we shall be

continuously sincere in professional practice; and sincerity as journalists

means, for example, that:

a.

We will put accuracy above all other considerations in the written

word, whether editorial, advertisement, article or news story.

b.

We will interpret accuracy not merely as the absence of actual

misstatement, but as the presence of whatever is necessary to

prevent the reader from making a false deduction.

 

I think this would be the starting point from which other standards would spring, but it doesn't answer the chilling effect question.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by swimmermom3

[debinindy]

debinindy, would you please consider starting a new thread to explore your opinions. People would like to continue discussing the journalism issue, and continued comments about abortion will likely get the thread shut down. That's not fair to those who are playing by the rules, even when that takes considerable effort to sit on fingers to do so.

 

No need to patronize...

carry on... discussing the many aspects of journalism

[albeto.]

This is a good example, but it's not a good analogy for what happened here.

 

Here, we have videos of conversations in which PP personnel described that when their abortionists know that they are seeking certain parts to be delivered intact, they try to crush the babies elsewhere so as to preserve those parts.  There is no excerpt from that that has a fully different meaning.

 

Or for another example, we have a former employee of a PP customer describing being trained to obtain intact brains, describing how her trainer taps the baby's chest and his heart starts beating again, and then she tells her to start the cut at the chin and go up the face to the top of the head to free up the brains for removal.  Again, there is no excerpt from that that would have a fully different meaning.

 

In both of these cases there is no change of context that would give these another meaning.

 

These are not illegal. Editing a video to create the illusion that this is the focus of the services is unethical, inaccurate, deceptive, and slanderous, and the courts will decide if it was obtained illegally as well. I hope you'd consider the same request I asked debinindia, and begin a new thread to discuss your opinions about abortion in general, so as to leave this one open, as is seemingly the OP's intended purpose.

[swimmermom3]

Another view regarding the editing question:

 

"...the Alliance Defending Freedom commissioned a forensic analysis of the footage. The report came out this week. Unlike the Planned Parenthood study, this report was done not by a partisan opposition research firm but by Coalfire, a third-party digital security and forensics firm with experience providing evidence for civil and criminal investigations. Unlike...the Planned Parenthood-commissioned audit, Coalfire had access to every second of released audio and video investigative footage. The Fusion report only had access to four full-length videos released on YouTube through August 4, and none of the source material.

 

Coalfire...released a report indicating the undercover videos recorded by the Center for Medical Progress are ‘authentic and show no evidence of manipulation.’

 

Forensic analysts were granted access to all of the raw investigated footage recorded by the Center for Medical Progress and checked it against the full length videos posted on the CMP YouTube account. They found the only events not depicted in the publicly available videos fell into five common categories: commuting, waiting, adjusting recording equipment, meals, and restroom breaks. All of the edited content was ‘non-pertinent’ to the actual investigation."

 

Here's another story about the report.

 

I agree that the activists should *not* have claimed the footage was unedited.

 

I am really confused by the information presented in that report. It says that no editing took place other than for what you outlined above. However, CNN had this report that said some of the video was not shot at PP. I believe that Daleiden confirmed this. So, if that's the case, then why wouldn't the splice show up? What am I missing technologically?

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I am pro-choice and not a fan of abortion, but then I don't know anyone IRL who is "Rah, rah, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread." I am a huge, in your face, use the damn birth control type of person.

 

......

 

"All of this  is legal, but here is why you the American people should be bothered by this."

 

...

 

Re. the first quoted sentence, I think that that was true more so in the 1900's, but in the last 15 year or so there has been a big shift.  I'm old enough to remember when this was being debated, and it was generally viewed as provision for a thoughtful response to a regrettable situation, but now there is a lot of criticism of Bill Clinton's formulation, 'safe, legal, and rare' as being bad because it implies that abortion is a wrong or at least undesirable, even if someone may believe that it is the lesser of two evils or some such thing.  The signs I have seen on the news say, "...on demand and without apology".  I think the former consensus that this is a weighty decision with moral implications is being rejected more and more, in ways that exceed the most paranoid of the slippery slope arguments of the late 1900s.  

 

Regarding the second quoted sentence, actually there is a lot of that in the original releases--and it focusses on the grotesqueness of the manner in which some of these things were taken lightly, as well as some of the specifics.  The allegation (and I have not researched this personally) was not that it is illegal to recover costs, but that it is illegal to sell human body parts, and that there was evidence that that was what was really going on, since there appeared to be negotiations of the prices, and presumably cost recovery would be fixed.  The other allegation was the question of changing a procedure in order to get these parts, and also of doing partial birth abortions, both of which are said to be illegal.  But really much of the material was about stuff that was legal but horrifying, and nobody said otherwise that I can recall.

 

Regarding the journalism issue, I have always been very sympathetic toward people who are harassed by mobs of journalists, and I don't think that routine trespassing on private property, for instance, should be allowed.  But the question of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy is being answered increasingly narrowly when it comes to law enforcement, and that makes me wonder whether it should do so in journalism as well, as much as I hate muckraking and the talk showization of pop culture.  I'm very conflicted about the whole issue, but in general I think that the press is being coopted and shut down, and that concerns me a great deal.  Legal actions like those in the OP can be chilling.

[Carol in Cal.]

I am really confused by the information presented in that report. It says that no editing took place other than for what you outlined above. However, CNN had this report that said some of the video was not shot at PP. I believe that Daleiden confirmed this. So, if that's the case, then why wouldn't the splice show up? What am I missing technologically?

 

 

There were quite a few videos, and they were shot in different places, but it was always possible to see where they were shot.  Some were over lunch at restaurants, and some were interviews with former employees, etc.  I don't think that all the video had to be shot at one location for the report to be true.

 

ETA:  So maybe what you were missing is that there were quite a few different videos?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Carol in Cal.