‘Critics argue…’: The Washington Post’s misplaced balance 

One of the good points liberal critics of the media have made in the past few years is this: journalists, in overzealous adherence to the idea of being “objective,” resort to he-said/she-said journalism when there are, in fact, objective facts available. My old boss Bob Novak called it “Deaf-Dumb-Blind Journalism.”

On the Left, the favorite example of this objectivity-to-the-point-of-relativism (and an overused and misused example, in my opinion) is climate change. For instance, Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic wrote:

We can validly debate the solutions, but it is simply stupid to pretend, for the sake of appearing to be fair, as if there is a fundamental scientific debate that has yet to be solved.

Here’s my example: the Washington Post shouldn’t pretend that there’s a debate over what the Plan B “morning after” pill does. Here’s a passage from a story today:

Plan B prevents a pregnancy by administering high doses of a hormone that mimics progesterone. It works primarily by inhibiting the ovaries from producing eggs. Critics argue it can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, which some consider equivalent to an abortion.

The Post claims there are two points that are made mostly by “critics”: (a) does it prevent a fertilized egg from implanting; and (b) is that “equivalent to an abortion.” I will agree that there is a debate on (b), which has to do with a question of when life begins.

But on the question of blocking implantation, that claim comes not from “critics,” but from the drug maker itself. Here’s a press release from the company, pointing out the drug might prevent fertilization, but also, “it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium).”

About The Author

Timothy P. Carney

Pin It
Favorite

More by Timothy P. Carney

Latest in Nation

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation