A royal message

It is now hours before the much- anticipated “Royal Wedding” between Prince William and Catherine Middleton. No one has been able to turn on the television without seeing every news reporter talking about Kate’s dress. We’ve seen coins, mugs and candy sporting the faces of the bride and groom to be. The news media has done a great job talking about all the superficial aspects of Will and Kate’s marriage, but the problem is that they are missing the point of the role of this royal couple. More needs to be done to shed light on the philanthropic work the couple plans to do, rather than wedding guest list.

Princess Diana was definitely a woman that was loved by all and stood out for her works of love, through helping the poor, needy and lonely around the world. It’s no wonder why so many people are attempting to compare how Kate will live up to her late mother-in-law. So if the world is going to compare Kate to Princess Diana, wouldn’t it only be natural for them to ask of the future Princess what she plans to do for the less fortunate of the world? But no… instead they are prying Lady Middleton to please let them know who is designing her wedding dress.

The truth is, Kate is her own person and deserves to be given room to carve her own path and make her own footsteps. So far we know that the couple asks that instead of wedding gifts, that their guests give money to a charity the couple have selected.

Journalists covering the wedding, need to ask questions that matter. Kate’s engagement ring and hats are nice, but they can only do so much for society. To be royal not only means to look good, but to do good as well. And this is something that people need to remember. When the guests have gone home and the honeymoon is over, how will William and Kate make their mark as husband and wife?

No doubt this wedding is monumental for a reason, but the underlying reason is because they have a big duty to accomplish. Too much is given much is expected. They have a duty to the people of their country, to reach out, just as Princess Diana did. To hold the hand of the sick person in the hospital, to inspire the young children in the school yard and let the lonely elderly person know that they are still valuable and wanted. The opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others is what makes being of a royal family so valuable.

I think news networks need to take a brake from talking about the latest dress Kate has worn and dedicate a segment to “The Future Works of the Royal Couple.” The segment could highlight several key issues of the bride and groom.

1) First it will highlight their philanthropic efforts thus far.

2) The reporter will touch upon the fact that William has decided that Kate will not be taking on full-time royal duties immediately after they are married, in order for her to become comfortable in her duty as a member of the royal family. Will these mean Kate will be involved in less charity work for the beginning days of their marriage?

3) The last part of the segment would highlight the couple’s future charity work. This would include discussing key issues that Will and Kate will focus on as a couple.

Hopefully people around the world won’t get lost in the hype of the glitz and glamour of these two lives coming together. Through the right kind of media attention, the public can begin to know what makes a royal marriage important- the ability to make a difference in live of those who need help, not those who need fashion tips.

A lesson for television news

Here’s the $15 million question: in the rough state of our economy, why are news networks paying their anchors an insane amount of money, despite declining ratings? Some people on television make too much money, for doing too little. Networks must rethink their strategies if they want their programs to survive an era when television news is struggling… to say the least.
Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer (just to name a few) all make a whopping $15 million a year, while Matt Lauer makes $13 million. When Katie Couric became anchor of CBS evening news, CBS employers all over the world felt it. Many were laid off just to compensate for Couric’s salary.
The indifference these on air “talents” have towards the repercussions of their high salaries is part of the key issue here. The other part is that these networks are still willing to negotiate extremely high salaries with these anchors, despite their dropped ratings.
Yes, these people you see reporting on network news are hardworking and talented, but to be quite frank, reading off a teleprompter,and 25 second copy stories about political reports and maybe an "exclusive interview" here and there is hardly worth earning more than $10 million dollars.
As a broadcast journalism major myself I know the inside world of broadcast news, and I will be the first to admit that the salaries these people on network news make is ridiculous. I propose a change be made in the world of news.
Here’s the $10 solution:
First of all the presidents of these networks need to come to terms that the quality of their news programs are declining, because of their limited staff. Many talented on air reporters, producers, writers, and camera crews were laid off after the networks couldn’t afford to pay them, because they decided an anchor was way more important. Many were left without work and the networks were stuck with limitations on their resources.
The solution to this is simple. (Drum roll please…) Pay your anchors less. If they don’t like it, then let them leave. I know for a fact there are tons of people who would gladly take Couric or Sawyer’s job for less money, without complaint. Many of these people are not essential to the news anyways. If they leave because they won’t get paid as much it’s ok. After all, they never did increase ratings from the beginning. Networks have nothing to lose.
Many people within the network news companies may argue that it’s not so simple to fix this dilemma, but they are getting it all wrong. Their theory is, pay a well-known person more to grab more viewers. The sad reality is that this strategy is not working. It may even be a plus if these on- air people leave. Networks need to diversify to grab a larger audience. Most anchors are Caucasians in their fifties to sixties. I highly doubt this will grab the attention of college students or minorities, especially those who don’t have a keen interest in the news. Networks need young minorities reporting the news. They are more relatable, specifically to the minority population of our nation.
Instead of spending their company’s money on high salaries, networks need to use the money on training younger reporters and correspondents around the world. It’s all about investing in the young talent today, so that news networks can have seasoned, diverse reporters for the future; Not just one anchor the network is banking on to draw in viewers.No pun intended. It may also inspire the next generation of broadcast journalists to be less greedy. After all, making the most money shouldn’t be what journalism is all about.

PUBLIC SQUARE Giving a Voice to the Silenced: The Missing Women of Juarez

Everyday dozens of girls go missing in the Mexican city of Juarez, Chihuahua. They seem to just disappear with out a trace in site. No notes, no leads. Just mothers’ tears and fathers’ questions of what happened to their child.
Hundred of “Missing Women” flyers line the walls of Juarez buildings. They show the pictures and description of girls, ages fifteen to their early twenties.; Attempts of families trying to find answers.
One cannot help but wonder, where is the government in this mess? The corruption of the countries police force is quite evident, but still no justified excuse as to why so many innocent lives with so much potential are taken away, especially with no closure given to their families.
According to a report done by reporter Girish Gupta of New Statesman, since current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 the number of women vanishing or being killed has risen. If the country’s president cannot come to the assistance of these young women, then surely this gives a reflection of the political state of the country.
Now, before I elaborate on this issue I would like to add a note about Mexico. It truly is a wonderful country with beautiful people, nature and culture. And this piece is in no way trying to tarnish the reputation of this country with rich history. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people of Mexico. But the hard truth is that, like any country, there is corruption; A virus that is taking away valuable members of society. This “femicide” needs to stop. The women of Juarez deserve their dignity back, their protection back and the life God gave them.
The women kidnapped are presumed to be pressured to partake in sex trafficking then dumped. The mere fact that these women are low income and probably couldn’t afford a ransom doesn’t help their situation either. The government is allowing the impoverished to be taken advantage of. If the “strong” cannot even protect the “weak,” then surely the country cannot progress as a nation.
The truth is, the Mexican government needs to make a harder effort to protect their young female citizens and gain justice for the families of victims.
The victims tend to be slender with dark hair and dark eyes. The similar physical appearance among the missing girls is a clue. Anyone can see that a certain group is being targeted.
When will enough be enough for the police to wake up and recognize the gravity of this issue? In Mexico, as in any other country, there are drug problems and human trafficking, so if the government is trying to gain a better image for their country, it’s interesting to observe that they aren’t making a more valiant effort to try and find these women. To say that there are just too many missing to try and find them all is no valid reason. Neither is playing the blame game.
The Mexican Government blames the victims. They claim the young women are simply running away from home with their boyfriends. But I doubt the families of the 900 women that were captured, tortured and killed between 1993 and 2010 would have agreed with this reasoning.
Another theory police have is that there is a rapist on the lurk kidnapping women and killing them. Well I’m sure there are several, but for one man to kidnap 900 hundred is just too naïve of an idea.
According to the Juarez Project, an advocacy organization aimed at helping the women of Juarez, about 90 percent of the women who go missing are employed by sweatshops, otherwise known as the maquiladora sector. These factories export products to the United States, which is to be assumed because Juarez borders the Texas city of El Paso.
I think it’s safe to say that something inhumane is lurking around the streets of Juarez, more than just rapists. Let’s look at the bigger picture. Hundreds of women, with similar physical characteristics are going missing (and many found dead) in a town filled with drug cartel and human trafficking. And the police have the audacity to tell everyone that they don’t know what could have happened to these girls. Not one clue? The best they can come up with is that these girls, with dreams, goals, educations, are running away with their boyfriends? Give me a break. Justice is not being served. Someone is preying on the weak. And the authorities are not telling on that someone.
These women going missing are no coincidences. Someone is making a profitable business on these girls and they do not like how the community is starting to react. Advocacy groups have begun to emerge. These organizations are comprised of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, and people who care about their fellow sisters whose stories deserve to be told.
Susan Chavez was a leader in the advocacy movement to push Juarez authorities to find out what is happening to all these women. Chavez was found murdered outside an abandoned house three months ago. This was such a loss to the people of Juarez that the police tried to keep her murder covered up to keep from causing unrest within the Juarez community. I think it’s fair to reason that there has been unrest since these women have begun to disappear.
Had the women all going missing been a coincidence, then no one would have targeted Chavez, a prominent advocate for the missing women and their families since the early 1990s. Gupta wrote in his article that Chavez, “ came up with the slogan, ‘Ni una muerte mas,” or, “Not one more death.” They wanted her silenced. She was an obstacle to them, another voice that had the potential to shed light on a “business” no one would speak about. There is no for sure answer as to what this “business” is, but whatever it is, it involves the lives of innocent women.
It’s hard to address a problem if its root cannot be located. Although authorities have very obvious leads to work with (i.e. drug cartels, human trafficking rings, etc…). Maybe they’re scared? Maybe they know, but fear for their lives? But what people do know is that the people of Juarez need to stand up for their protection and for the lives of their women. Maybe, just maybe, they can push the government to really do something for the innocent women who deserved to live. There can still be hope. There can still be prevention. Lessons can be learned, and in turn lives can be saved. Good always overcomes evil. The women of Juarez are forced to be slaves of fear, but now only the truth can set them free.

A moment of silence for the children unheard

There is a national epidemic that has been hitting our nation for years. Children are dying; more than 1, 700 a year. These deaths could have been prevented, just ask their social workers at the child protection agencies that were supposed to protect them.

Every year children in states across the U.S. are victims of abuse. To give you a clearer picture, Child Welfare reported that children younger than one year made up almost half of the percentage of children being abused.

Children from the ages of one to three made up 35 percent; ages four to seven, ten percent; Eight to eleven, four percent; and ages 12 to 17, six percent.

Children younger and younger are being targeted and left to die. Where is their protection?

Too many times you turn on the television and you see commercials about abused puppies, asking for people to give money to humane societies or to adopt them, to give them a better home, where they will be loved and properly cared for.

What about the children?

What about four year-old Marchella Pierce from New York, who was physically abused and tied to her bed by her mother? She was only eighteen pounds when she died last September.

Didn’t little Marchella deserve a better home? A home where she would be loved and respected as a human being, more importantly, as a child of God.

Marchella’s mom, who is said to have been addicted to drugs, is already facing murder charges. According to a report by New York Times reporter, Mosi Secret, prosecutors said her mother, “tied her to her bed, beat her with a belt and a videocassette tape, deprived her of food and water, and force-fed her medication. Marchella died… of child abuse syndrome, along with acute drug poisoning, blunt impact injuries, malnutrition and dehydration.”

Couldn’t Marchella’s social worker see the red flags? What about the New York judicial system? Why was she even allowed to live with her mother given the evidence of abuse and drug use?

Now Marchella’s welfare worker and his supervisor are being indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide, along with her grandmother who allegedly saw her being abused and tied to the bed, reported the New York Times.

The sad truth is that Marchella’s story is just the tip of the ice berg. Many other children have lost their lives to the negligence of the child protection system. Now this is not to say that all the social workers are being negligent, but too many are.

In 2006, seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown, who was also under the protection of the child welfare agency, died due to child abuse. New York Times reporter Mosi Secret and Cara Buckley reported that she had been “tied to furniture with bungee cords and ropes and was beaten by her step-father.” Although despite her situation the Child Welfare Agency did nothing.

The problem could be traced to that fact that too many cases are being assigned to each social worker, it may be hard to keep tabs on every child- but that is still no excuse. And what’s worse, the state of New York is now looking to cut funds for child welfare agencies. With positions being cut, now there is a lower amount workers assigned to follow more cases of children being abused.

According to the New York Times, the average case worker is assigned to 16.5 cases, but since the many reports of neglect on behalf of these workers have emerged over the past few years, the load is now being narrowed down to nine cases.

The words, “case closed,” should only be used when workers are for certain that the child is in safe hands. Higher standards need to be established by these agencies to better assure that abused children will not be left to abusive parents.

Our children need protection. Negligence is not a valid response to the overwhelming amount of children that need shelter from their dysfunctional homes.

I’m not here to judge Marchella’s case worker, but one can only hope that this will be an example to all social workers everywhere. Hopefully it can serve as a message, telling everyone that a child’s life is not to be gambled with. One can never be too careful, especially when in the position to protect the life of an innocent person being abused.

Like the old saying goes. To whom much is given, much is expected. The life of any child is precious; the case workers must recognize this and realize that they have the ability to make a positive difference in the world and for these kids. Why not start on the right path and make sure these children do not become another statistic.

Backbone of our nation

Undocumented immigrants give a new meaning to the United State’s slogan, “home of the free.” I mean after all they come here and basically work for nothing.
 
Next time you bite into a nice juicy strawberry, use a clean bathroom, admire your mowed lawn, think of the immigrant who did that for you.
 
The next young Spanish-speaking bus boy, that cleans your five-star restaurant table, the cleaning woman that’s scrubbing your toilet, the woman than sewed your favorite shirt, imagine a world without them.
 
Illegal immigrants make up about five percent of the country’s labor force. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman even agrees that undocumented workers are important to our economy saying, “Undocumented workers accounted for a sixth of the growth in the nation’s workforce over the first eight years of the decade. Even after the flow of illegal workers has slowed with the recession,” reported Michael Mcauliff of New York Daily News Writer.
 
Some politicians want a world without them, so this may be a reality coming to a city near you.
 
These are my modern-day heroes. But to those in the “political world,” they are an economic detriment, taking jobs away from the millions of unemployed in this country.
 
But that’s funny? The last time I was on Craig’s list or any other job site, I didn’t see any job postings for any field worker willing to work below minimum wage with no benefits. I have not met one American Citizen that would be willing to work sunrise to sunset picking your lettuce or scrubbing the toilet of the rich and famous.
 
If only the Texas lawmakers would know the lives of these immigrants. If you haven’t already heard, the state of Texas is proposing the House Bill 1202, which would make citizens spend up to two years in prison and pay up to $10,000 in fines if caught hiring illegal immigrants for any type of work.
 
Associated Press Economics writer, Jeannine Aversa put it so nicely, “If all the illegal workers in this country were booted out tomorrow, economists believe wages would have to rise significantly to get U.S.-born workers to take their jobs.”
 
According to a poll conducted by AP-lpsos, “about two-thirds of Americans surveyed, said they believed illegal immigrants did the jobs most Americans don’t want,” reported the AP.
Some illegal immigrants pay taxes too. “The Social Security Administration estimates that about three quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare,” reported the AP.
 
To further support my argument the AP also reported that William Ford, an Economist from Middle Tennessee State University, said, “a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy. He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and exercise taxes 9such as gas tax) are significant,” reported the AP, via MSNBC.
 
Lawmakers are targeting the Latino immigrant, because the last time I checked Homeland Security wasn’t going out to deport illegal Canadians or pulling them over suspecting that they may be illegal. But that’s another story, for another op-ed piece.  
 
A lot of people don’t know that many of these immigrants that provide inexpensive labor for this country are actually professionals back home. Many of them leave their lives as a dentist, doctor, real estate agent and come here to flee the dangers and struggling economy of their home towns. Much to the surprise of many, not all who cross the border are smuggling drugs.
 
They risk their lives to come here and make whatever they can to send back money to their families. At the same time they are the only ones willing to work for such low pay at such great quality. These people are hard workers, willing to put their professional pride aside and help the American people do jobs that, well lets face it, that not even people that are unemployed will do.
 
Not only is this Texas bill going to actually hurt the economy, but is unfair for the Americans who are struggling financially or even the Americans who don’t even know they are hiring illegal immigrants.
 
Again in the wise words of  Aversa,“They pay payroll taxes, they’re helping bankroll Social Security and Medicare but won’t get to participate in the programs because of their immigrant status. Experts also note that illegal immigrants also spend part of their paychecks in this country- for food, clothes, furniture, living expenses and other things- all of which contribute to economic growth.”
 
Are we really going to prosecute people for hiring someone to mow their lawn or clean their laundry room? People who although, do not have a “legal” status, are willing to work hard in this country for basically nothing.
 
As far as I’m concerned, the immigrants in this country are the backbone for our nation.
 
I understand that we have rules in the United States against illegal aliens for purposes of homeland security. And I respect these laws.
 
But I still can’t help but wonder why are we to prosecute Americans who can’t afford more expensive labor, and persecute those we are willing to contribute to our country through hard labor?
 
It doesn’t make sense.
 
So put the people who hire illegal immigrants in jail. And send the immigrants back home. What will this do?
 
Well for starters, lets see this large deficit we are facing as a country. Well, it will go up because we are putting more undeserving people in jail, thus spending more money through are prison-system and take up spots and money from people who actually committed crimes that are “jail-worthy.”
 
And well as far as our produce and clean bathrooms, well those probably will be sparse too, because I think it can be assumed that American citizens will not dare to work the same hours with out benefits as these immigrants do.
 
I believe Texas lawmakers need to think hard about this. They are shooting their state in the foot. They are aware that their state in particular thrives because of the hard work of the illegal immigrant that has crossed the border.  
 
Now I am not trying to promote people to break the law and violate federal law, through “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants. All I’m asking is for lawmakers to stop covering their eyes from something everyone already knows. Let’s take a look at the big pink elephant in the room. And that is the fact that the illegal immigrants of this country deserve to work here. They work hard for this country, harder than most Americans I know.
 
I encourage Texas politicians and those in all states to recognize the unjust nature of the House Bill 1202. Not only will it entrap American citizens who don’t know, but cause a decrease of our modern day heroes. These are the man who pours your coffee and the woman who leaves her children and takes care of your baby, these so called, “illegal aliens.”
 
But they are my heroes.
 
 

The New Standard for Objective Journalism

The GOP has become a large threat to Planned Parenthood and their pro-choice counterparts. In the past few weeks breaking news flooded newspapers, television and the Internet about the country’s budget and many riots that have plagued counties overseas. However, it is fair to argue that one of the most note-worthy stories covered is the Republicans party’s initiative to have Planned Parenthood defunded. As a pro-life, Catholic journalist this has obviously caught my eye, but what has been quite troublesome is the media’s role in covering this issue. Now more than ever have double standards invaded the news. In a world where journalism is supposed to be objective, the new standard of “neutral” in the media is to be “liberal.” And so it can be observed from the stance of a “conservative” journalist, that the news coverage of the Planned Parenthood debate has shown to be more “liberal” than should be accepted in journalism- it does not fit the mold of what journalism should be.
Last week The House passed legislation that could potentially defund Planned Parenthood. This comes after years of controversy surrounding how much money is given to Planned Parenthood through tax dollars. Last year more than $360 million was given to this pro-choice corporation. Since The House’s vote many pro Planned Parenthood have been outraged at the thought of losing funds. And many of those outraged are the journalists that we encounter everyday. These journalists have made their liberal viewpoints very clear, at the expense of offending conservative audiences through their one-sided reporting.
In reading the various articles online about the Planned Parenthood debate one headline caught my attention. It read, “The Conservative War on Planned Parenthood.” The article, written by Huffington Post writer, Bill de Blasio, said, “The conservative movement has declared war on Planned Parenthood and the rights of women. Now New Yorkers should lead the effort to fight back. Take five minutes to make your voice heard by calling your Congress member and Senator or join the Stand up for Women's Health rally on February 26th in Foley Square. Together we can show the country that New York City will not be silent when women's health care comes under attack.” Although Mr. de Blasio has a right to write his thoughts, where is the objectivism on behalf of The Huffington Post? De Blasio’s comments sound like a commercial for Planned Parenthood, which goes against every journalistic ethic.
As a conservative reader one cannot help but wonder why, in the coverage of this Planned Parenthood issue, it’s acceptable for pro-choice journalists to be able to voice their opinions and still be published, but conservative writers are left to be unheard or the “silencers,” of pro-choice actions. This double standard has become all too popular in journalism.
Before I began to analyze the subjective nature found in today’s news the “other side” (liberal journalists) needs to be analyzed. For starters, it is safe to say that perhaps the reason why so many editors and producers have allowed the liberal voice to become the standard for many of their journalists is because of the impression that we live in a predominately liberal country. But does this make the pro-life voice less valuable? One would hope not, in a democratic society where all intellectual views should be equally heard. So why is the voice of the conservative, pro-life journalist being washed out? Or labeled as “extremist.” This is not journalism- but if this is what the standard for journalism is now, than perhaps so are the balanced ethics of the profession.
On the other hand, as touched upon in the thesis, from a conservative standpoint, the new liberal norm for the majority of the sources of journalism in that the country does not fit the “objective balanced” mold that journalism should consist of. So to be fair, allow me to briefly defend the pro-life stance on the Planned Parenthood debate, since this side lacks the proper coverage it deserves- but that’s only my opinion. In defense of the pro-life movement and in an effort to give a more in depth look at where they are coming from, one must focus on the issue that has become unanimous with Planned Parenthood- abortion. The Pro-life politicians, and citizens of the United States have made it their duty to protect the lives of the unborn. They don’t want their tax dollars to support an organization, such as Planned Parenthood that provides abortions to women. In Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s article, “Promoting Fetal Personhood,” for the Feminist Formations Journal Summer 2010, they wrote, “Pro-life forces are vigorously pursuing the agenda of fetal personhood at every level of government, advancing it in hospitable states and pushing Congress to erode away the abortion right.”
However, before one can even begin to answer the question as to why the coverage of the GOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood has become unethically biased, the dynamics of who is covering the news must be broken down.
No matter if you are a journalist or not, beneath any title lies a human being with their own points of views and emotions. As a journalist it is important to contain your views and report unbiased information. Unfortunately this has not been the case with today’s news coverage, leaving the new norm for a journalist. In the case of covering the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to be a liberal, pro-choice journalists and giving your thoughts, is viewed as being “neutral” or “objective.” But if you are a journalist with conservative views and write or talk about them then you are considered “anti-woman” and too pushy with your beliefs. There is an unsaid unaccepted prejudice against the conservative reporting of the Planned Parenthood debate. In a scholarly article for “Feminist Formation,” Glen A. Halva and Sara L. Zeigher write, “We found that the pro-life movement engaged in an effective strategy of advancing the anti-abortion agenda by constructing key rhetorical positions designed to foster public opposition to abortion.” Anyone in my position would completely disagree with this when applied to today’s media when covering this particular ordeal with Planned Parenthood and the GOP. To further this argument one can take New York’s Examiner.com writer, Jessica Oesterie’s article into account. In her article covering Planned Parenthood’s rally for women’s health she wrote (in bold letters), “Planned Parenthood clinics are dedicated to the empowerment of all women through education and family planning options, particularly in underserved communities. They also offer various services to men in the form of contraceptives, disease information, disease screenings and consultation.” Now if this doesn’t sound like a Planned Parenthood advertisement to anyone then journalism must be really going down then drain. This article is clearly trying to sway readers to be pro-planned parenthood. Therefore the previous claim that pro-life people try to sway the public view to be anti-choice is falsified. With this information presented it is fair to say that it’s okay for liberal journalists to come out and freely say what they believe in, when covering this particular issue, but heaven forbid a conservative writer wrote about what they believe. The same example of double standards can be found in the criticism of pro-life actions.
The media has been quick to criticize the undercover work done by pro-life group Live Action. In their undercover work Live Action caught Planned Parenthood workers in six different states willing to help out (actors posed as) “pimps” and his “underage women” receive services instead of reporting him to the authorities for human trafficking. Rather than just reporting what happened, and let the viewer or reader infer for themselves what this meant, headlines read, “ “Falsified Deception or Lying?”, “Behind the Assault on Planned Parenthood,” (Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post), “Hoax Video Exposed,” (Media Matters for America) when in fact the videos were proven to be true. In journalism, most of the times opinions are not welcomed. There seems to be an underlying vendetta against the pro-life movement. This is so because, had the undercover work been done to expose animal-abuse no one would have said anything. But because it’s a pro-life group exposing wrong within Planned Parenthood, even when it deals with human trafficking, journalists are pointing out who they think is the “bad guy” (Live Action in this case). There is no need for this subjective behavior on behalf of the media.
The double standard within the media covering the Planned Parenthood debate is shown through this same example of Live Action’s undercover work in exposing Planned Parenthood. Live Action is in a sense a form of muckraker journalism. They did the undercover work, stated the facts of what happened and posted the video for people to see and take what they want from it on their own. In the greater part of the media’s eyes (not including Fox News) the actions of Live Action were “wrong and “manipulative.” When in reality all they did was investigative journalism. This is no different than any other investigative piece that other reporters do to expose corruption like malpractice with doctors. However, for the majority of journalists to express their personal opinion about the issue has become acceptable? As a journalist it is frustrating to see one side (the left) take precedence over the other (the right).
In his article “Journalism: Objective or Subjective?” for Salem News.com, writer Ersun Warnke said, “Journalism as a profession is defined institutionally as being devoted to objective truth. Facts. Events. Names, dates, and places. The classical definition of journalism assumes that there is some observable truth that can be related in an objective fashion from the observer to the reader.” The key word presented here is “facts.” As a viewer I just want the facts, and I will then take what I want from it.
Now this is not to say that journalists are not allowed to have some sort of voice. In certain scenarios it is to be expected that the anchor/ reporter is to give their views, based on the nature of the broadcast or publication they work for (e.g. The O’Reilly Factor, etc.). However, if a journalist is working for a “neutral,” news source, their ranting should be saved for other times.
The reasoning for my position on this issue stems not only from my experience as a journalist, but as a news consumer as well. There is a problem if a news network or publication is in anyway offensive to their audience, due to personal comments made by the journalist. For instance, I am pro-life, and as I read and watch the supposedly-neutral coverage on the Planned Parenthood debate, I am not bothered because I don’t necessarily agree with some of these left-winged journalists, but because they are carrying out their opinion too far, to the point where one side of the story is covered up by their political bias. I agree to disagree with some of these writers and broadcasters, but if news networks or publications are going to allow for their writers or broadcasters to let their pro-choice opinions be heard openly, at the risk of offending their pro-life audience, then they should openly welcome pro-life, conservative journalists to do the same. It’s only right and the balanced thing to do.
Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s again write in their article, “Pro-life groups have experienced failures, to be sure, but their history is one of creative persistence and increasing success. Where direct attacks on the abortion right have failed, the groups have attempted to establish the legal personhood of the fetus through other means, without abandoning the direct attack in venues where it has some hopes of success. It is clear that the message has begun to resonate with both legislators and the public. We anticipate that the efforts to persuade the American public that the fetus is indeed a person, and that failure to recognize its humanity harms not only the fetus but also the women and society at large, will continue to gain adherents.” Perhaps one day this massage that they write about will be heard through the news media. But to be totally “objective” in today’s standards, I believe these pro-life messages are shining through and will one day be heard through a journalist who will once again break the mold of what a fair and balanced journalist should be. Let’s shatter the glass ceiling and reverse the role of the journalist today. Tip the scale a little more to the right and more for life.

Planned Parenthood Exposed and My Tax Dollars

If you’ve read my previous blog you know that I am pro-life. It’s also no surprise that I was very happy with the work of Lila Rose’s Live Action Pro-life group undercover work that exposed the corruption within Planned Parenthood. Rose and her group sent out a couple posing as a “pimp” and a young, underage female. What they caught on camera was mind blowing. They told the people at Planned Parenthood that they did “sex work,” and needed to get some of the women then just got shipped to the U.S. illegally, STD tested. And instead of reporting it to the police they advised the “pimp,” about how to get the services needed, some even told him how the young ladies could continue working during their healing 2-week period after having an abortion. Last time I checked, a “pimp” with underage women, in the “sex business,” is human trafficking. Not once did they confront the “pimp” about his illegal activity. They just turned the other cheek and allowed these “young women” to continue being prostitutes. The sad part is, this happened at Planned Parenthoods in the states of New Jersey, New York, Washington D.C, Arizona, Indiana and Virginia. It doesn’t matter what your stance is, whether you’re pro-life or not, human trafficking is wrong. Nothing justifies it. The fact that this happened in several clinics is too much. The growing trend of neutrality within Planned Parenthood has gone too far here. Regardless of their excuses that these woman deserve help regardless of their status is not justifiable. Sitting there and listening to a “pimp” talk about his young girls and just going along with it is wrong. Through their services, the clinics were giving the ok for illegal activity to occur and even letting those young woman return to a sad life of selling their body against their will.

What’s even more disturbing is that our tax dollars are going to support clinics such as these. Last year Planned Parenthood received about $363 million from our tax dollars. For what? So they can strip young women of their human dignity through covering up abusive relationships and sex trafficking through abortions? Nothing in my eyes can justify this. It’s astonishing to think that Planned Parenthood who claims they want to “help” young women, would allow them to re-enter these relationships, whether it’s pimping or not. My heart goes out to the women who face the tough choice of abortion, it must be an awful place to be in, but they need to know that abortion is not the only option. There is hope for them and killing your baby or returning to a life of prostitution doesn’t have to be the only way out. It’s our duty to help each other find hope. And that hope is life. A life without pimping or killing innocent lives. These women seeking help at clinics such as these want solutions, not more problems.

Right now pro-life advocates are pushing a bill on Capitol Hill to stop tax-funded abortions. Fox News reported a Poll that was conducted last November showed that 61 percent of Americans opposed paying for abortions. This included 70 percent of women.

It bothers me that our tax dollars support this new culture of death. What scares me is what if there was no set up by Live Action. What if that pimp was not an actor, but real? Reality is, this scenario is probably not new to these clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to help these women. If they did, they would have not offered services to these pimps in the beginning. They tell them it’s best to abort their child, then send them on their way. What they don’t have to deal with are the emotional and sometimes physical scars left with these women. The consequences they risk; guilt and depression that leads to suicide, sterilization, life-threatening infections and sometimes even death. I don’t want to pay for this. I care about my sisters too much.