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.

Public Intellectual: John Calvin

John Calvin is a public intellectual who used his insight about the bible to reform a large sect of Christianity- although not all. A philosopher of the word of God, his extremist view points have left a mark on Protestants throughout the world, as well as a mess for many other Christians to clean up. John Calvin, although highly regarded as a revolutionary intellect in the Protestant community, contradicts his own credibility as a theologian and expert of the bible, through his “5-point theory,” which is not even scripturally supported and thus often challenged by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps the most ironic part of John Calvin’s life is the fact that he was raised in a devout Catholic family, which he then later broke away from to become one of the most prominent reformers of the protestant denomination. But before I get into all that, lets back up a little. Calvin was born in France in 1509. His father wanted him to become a Catholic priest due to the family’s close ties with the local Cathedral, but Calvin had other plans. He went to study at the College de Marche in Paris to prepare for the university. At this time, around the year 1527, Calvin was still a practicing Catholic, but was friends with many who were influenced by the writings of Martin Luther and Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples, which were popular in Paris at the time. So naturally this was a factor that caused Calvin to eventually leave the Church and join the reformation as well. In 1528 Calvin went to study law in Orleans. After receiving his degree in 1533 he left Paris because he associated with many who wrote against the Catholic Church. And basically to make a long story a little shorter, he eventually broke away from the Catholic Church by 1536. Calvin then proceeded to spend the rest of his life, until his death in 1564, mainly in Geneva and Strasbourg where he preached and wrote about the bible, his doctrine, The Institutes of the Christian Church, as well as others.
The core of John Calvin’s teachings was based on taking the Holy Scripture literally. In other words, if it’s not in the bible don’t believe it. If it is, you have to follow it word for word. Another one of Calvin’s teachings was his idea of predestination and the “doctrine of the elect.” This led to Calvin’s famous “5 Points,” or otherwise know today as “5- Point Calvinism.” And this, fellow readers, is where it’s about to get interesting.
Now before I get into what exactly the 5-points of Calvinism are, I want to point out that I can see why so many may have respected Calvin as a preacher and even an intellect. I mean let’s face it he knew the bible, literally, from front to cover. And as a non-Protestant I respect those who may believe his teachings. But as a Roman Catholic I feel that it is my duty to challenge Calvin’s 5-point theory. I believe he is wrong, and it is hard to believe that some one who claimed to have been so knowledgeable about the Christian faith was so off target. Calvin used scripture as the basis for everything he taught, or Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for “by scripture alone.” Yet nowhere in the bible is Sola Scriptura supported. Instead it says, “Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth,” 1 John 3:18. And yet Ironically it is scripture, the very heart of what Calvin taught, that contradicts Calvin’s ideas about faith.
So with this said, as a Catholic I challenge his beliefs about faith and respond to them from my Catholic perspective.
And so ladies and gentlemen, the 5 points of Calvinism…
Calvinism is known as the acronym T.U.L.I.P. This stands for:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Total Depravity is the idea that we as humans inherited sin through Adam in the Garden of Eden. Calvin taught since we, as humans are so sinful we are therefore unable to desire or freely choose God in this unholy state of being. Because of this, God has already “predestined” those who are to believe in him and be saved.
I’m sorry, but I beg to differ. Yes, there are passages in the bible that point out man’s sinful nature. And we’re all sinners, because we’re human. But if God predestined who was to be his followers, than Jesus died in vain. Calvin teaches that there is no free will. If this is so then all our experiences are false. For example, when I went to church last week it’s because I freely wanted to go and believe on my own in Jesus Christ. But Calvin would think that God is making me go because I am just too spiritually dirty to decide that on my own. I’m sorry but as Catholics we teach that God is love. And when you love someone you would never force them to love you are be with you. True love is the longing for others to be happy. Because of this God does not want to force himself upon his children, but rather give them the freedom to come to Him to be healed from any pain and forgiven of any sin. Calvin is wrong. God loves all his creation, or else he wouldn’t of made them! And because He loves us all so much he gives them all an opportunity to choose Him and be saved. If you want to get technical a simple example that refutes Calvin’s teaching are the Ten Commandments. God would not have sent us these rules if we were not able to willfully, on our own choose to obey them. Instead He would have just saved the piece of stone, no Moses, and just picked the people He chose to obey Him.
Unconditional Election stems from Total Depravity. Unconditional election is the idea that God pre-elects all those who are to be saved. Well, this can be proven not true through the very Word of God found in the Gospel of Matthew 23: 37, “ Jerusalem, Jerusalem you who killed the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen who gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” In this verse one can pick up on one key point. Here God is telling the Israelites that he wanted them to follow Him and show them the greatness of His love, but they denied Him. Therefore the people of Jerusalem had free will. So Total Depravity is false. And because this is false, God also does not predestine who will be saved. He wanted Jerusalem to be saved but they did not obey him, so therefore God did not come just for a select few that would automatically choose to believe in Him, but rather wants everyone to choose Him. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires all for salvation and this, as stated above can be proven through scripture.
The next Calvinistic point is Limited Atonement. This means that Jesus only died for the “elect” that God predestined. As a Christian this theory disturbs me. The Catholic Church, and most other Christian denominations, teach that Jesus died on the cross for everyone! Many verses from the bible prove this idea of Calvin to be completely wrong. Probably one of the most well known bible verses, John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Or in 1 John 2:2, “He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” Key word: World. World means everyone- not just a selected group. Once again, Calvin is contradicted through the same scripture he studied his whole life.
The next point of Calvin is Irresistible Grace, which means God only sends His Grace and Holy Spirit to his “elect” to help them turn from their sinful ways and helps them better understand God’s word. This is a grace that Calvin taught could not be resisted by the “elect.” The Catholic Church teaches that God’s grace is open to all. Calvin’s theory is challenged in verses like Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, saving all,” or in John 1:16, “From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace.”
The last point of Calvinism, Perseverance of Saints, ties directly into irresistible grace. This is the theory that once you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (in Calvin’s case, those elected by God), then you are eternally saved; nothing you can do will prevent you from enjoying eternal glory in Heaven one day. As Catholics we believe that there are grievous sins that, if willfully not repented for, do have the potential to separate you from salvation. Man has the free will to turn away from God’s ways, and it’s up to us to ask for the forgiveness of those sins. We are not perfect “elect” who will always be successful in our faith. We are human and we make mistakes. We all are in dire need of a savior, some one to help us get through life and pick us up when we fall. Calvin’s theory is a mockery of what Heaven is- a final prize for those who lived in God’s ways, trying their best despite the many challenges of life. St. Paul speaks of Heaven in his First letter to the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the crown? Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadow boxing. No I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). St. Paul talks about winning a crown. This crown is heaven. Believers are in this game of life, and in order to one day reach heaven we must work hard, through being a good person and obeying God. Life can be hard and following God’s way can be difficult, that’s why we must “train” ourselves to overcome these temptations and always turn and rely on God in our times of need. To sum it up, heaven is a reward for those who persevered in this life, despite the many temptations to turn from God.
The word of God is no doubt important to every Christian. However, John Calvin, as much as he knew the bible, was contradicted by scripture itself. Christianity revolves around God’s love for all and His longing for everyone to experience His glory. Although he is long gone, I respect John Calvin as a person and as someone who did love God, but as a Catholic Christian, I challenge Calvin’s teachings because it skews who God really is- Hope and Salvation for all.

PUBLIC SQUARE: To The Unborn, With Love We Remember You.

tM January is pro-life month. This means that marches are going on all over the country in support of pro-life causes such as the end to abortion. The biggest one is The Walk for Life and it seems awesome! But the sad part is that while typing this I’m fearful. I’m scared of my words being offensive to a pro-choice reader or that people who don’t necessarily believe the way I do will think I’m being insensitive to those women who have gone through an abortion. They may think I don’t understand what they’re going through or their life story, which supposedly justified their choice to abort. And they’re right. I’m not here to judge. I’m here to stand up for the life of the unborn. I understand that abortion is a sensitive subject to many. Heck, I had to mull the thought over about whether I should write about this for a few days. And truly my Heart goes out to all the women who have been affected by abortion. I may not know the lives of all these women but I want to shed light on the lives of the babies whom none of us will ever know. I'm not fearful to share my views anymore. 

Consider Nelson Mandela, Babe Ruth, Steve Jobs, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jamie Foxx, Nat King Cole, Willie Nelson, George Washington Carver, Faith Hill, John Lennon, J.R.R Tolkien, Aristotle, Jesse Jackson, and Langston Hughes (just to name a few). Our world truly would not be the same without these people. Funny thing though! One thing they all have in common- they’re adopted. Their parents chose life.  In the United States, about 1.3 million babies are aborted every year. Just think how many more people like those previously listed could be contributing to this world had they just been given a chance.

A life begins at the moment of conception. What a bold statement. Very controversial, but I have no shame in saying it. A life begins at the moment of conception. Don’t believe me? Well some of the top doctors do, because they have done enough research to prove it.

Like Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who was a well-respected physician, Doctor of Science, and a Professor of genetics for 25 years.  Dr. Lejeune actually founded the genetic cause for Down’s Syndrome. He was the recipient of many awards and said the proof that life begins at conception lied in the root and creation of a DNA molecule.

A quote from Dr. Lejeune off the “Physicians for Life” website says:

“Each of us has a very precise starting moment which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon which we call the DNA…Nature has used the smallest possible language to carry the information from father to children, from mother to children, from generation to generation…At no time is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person, which you are now. You were and are a human being."

Nicely put Dr. Lejeune.

            But we can’t forget the mothers too. Whether many women want to admit it or not, they suffer when they abort. How can you not? Now is time more than ever to show love to these women who desperately need it the most.  

Like I said before, my heart goes out to these women who made the painful decision. Post- Abortion Trauma often causes women to feel guilty and depressed even to the point of suicide (Don’t believe me? Then please look it up). To top it off, not only does abortion cause emotional and mental pain, but physical pain as well. Abortions can pose as a health threat to women, some even leading to infections, bleeding, fever, cervical laceration, future miscarriages, and in some cases, even death. Society has to take this into account. Although its understandable to see where pro-choice advocates are coming from, shouldn’t this information be enough for them to see that abortion only leads to more suffering.

I don’t know about you, but if my neighbor was about to make a decision that could one day potentially lead them down the road of deep depression to the point where they consider taking their own life, I would want to intervene and help them make a better choice. Religiously speaking , I am my brothers (or in this case, sister’s) keeper. I don’t know one person who regretted having their baby after giving birth. And society should stop walking on egg shells around people and start spreading hope to the many women who have an “unwanted” pregnancy. For starters, what about adoption? Did you read how many famous people were adopted. Just think these babies could have been the doctor to cure diseases like Cancer or HIV, or maybe the first women president? The possibilities are endless. Hope. That’s a word more of these women could use. If they’re in an abusive relationship or can’t financially afford a baby, there are many programs that provide a safe place and resources. Hope. Let’s spread it.

In the Wise Words of Dr. Seuss, “A person is a person no matter how small.” So to all the babies who never got to experience the sunshine, their first steps, or dunking their face in the frosting of their first birthday cake, know that you are loved. May the month of January be a time to remember you. Happy Birthday. tM