Posted by: Sister Toldjah on April 27, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Just got done glancing at Memeorandum and saw this rant written by “WIMN’s Voices” (“Women’s Voices”) writer Keely Savoie complaining about media coverage of the explosive found behind a women’s clinic (that’s code for: abortion clinic) in Austin. In a post titled, “Silence is Complicity,” Savoie writes:
They’re at it again: A week since the SCOTUS began dismembering Roe anti-choice lunatics are terrorizing women’s clinics, as reported by the Associated Press in a very brief piece headlined, “Explosive found at Austin women’s clinic.”
The “they” in question, however, is not the domestic terrorists responsible. It is the media that systematically ignores these stories, as Jennifer Pozner has pointed out in the past. This particular story — in which “A package left at a women’s clinic that performs abortions contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death” took place in Austin, TX yesterday. I wouldn’t have known myself unless I had a friend down there, where it was covered with all the fanfare of a traffic accident.
The national press? Aside from 97 words from the AP and a brief mention from CNN — nothing (according to a Nexis search at 5:15 pm today). In that lone CNN mention, we’re told that “Officials from the Homeland Defense Team, which includes police officers, also other Austin officers, the Department of Emergency Ordnance Disposal unit and the FBI and the U.S. Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives” were on the scene. Yet still, not a peep from the national press. Now, imagine if this clinic had been a bank, or a high school, or a sports arena. I bet we would have heard something about it then.
The media’s silence surrounding issues of violence against women is not only emblematic of a fundamentally dismissive attitude, it ultimately harms all feminist causes, and lends to the perception that feminists are all just knee-jerk alarmists railing against imaginary enemies. It’s easier to dismiss the need to constitutionally protect women from violence and discrimination if you erase all evidence that such things exist.
She notes in an update today that ABC, MSNBC, and Reuters have now covered the story but ‘wider coverage” is still “lacking.”
Ok, first things first: I don’t have a problem with people complaining about the lack of adequate media coverage that certain stories get. Heck, conservatives do it all the time. But in this instance, Savoie has taken the usual alarmist attitude modern day feminists take when they believe they’re either being ignored or think that their rights are being ’stolen’ from them, by assuming that the reason that the mediots supposedly didn’t cover this story (and similar stories, apparently) as widely as she’d like them to is because they want to pretend violence against women doesn’t exist. It’s almost as if she really thinks there is some kind of conservative media bias against covering stories about violence or attempted violence against women (I mean, because we know conservatives hate women – even conservative women hate women!).
Savoie makes a number of mistakes in her assumptions. First, this story was first reported two days ago, on the 25th by KVUE and KXAN in Texas. At the time it was first reported, it was reported as a ’suspicious package’, and hadn’t yet been confirmed to be an explosive. By yesterday afternoon and evening, once it had been confirmed as an explosive, several more media outlets picked up on the story, including FoxNews and CNN. As you can see from this link, there are now at least 96 stories about the explosive being found at the women’s clinic. Now, I dunno about you, but that’s a lot more than the meager coverage she initially complained about.
To be fair, she wrote her post at 1:54 pm yesterday, and I’m not sure that at that time it was getting a lot of coverage because I don’t know when exactly it was yesterday that it was confirmed that the ’suspicious package’ was an explosive. But she jumped the gun in assuming that the mediots wanted to ignore this story, because 24 hours after the initial reports on the two Texas stations, nearly 100 news outlets (and probably more) are reporting it. Her assuming that the media wanted to ignore this story because they wanted to pretend violence and discrimination against women didn’t exist would be like me writing on Wednesday night that she was ignoring issues pertaining to violence and discrimination against women because she hadn’t written about this story. Sometimes you have to give a developing story about 24 hours before it gains traction. In fact, the Don Imus ‘controversy’ didn’t start erupting until two days after he made the comments.
As far as the media supposedly wanting to make ‘violence and discrimination against women’ issues ‘go away’, I don’t know what she’s been doing for the last several years, but I guess Savoie forgot the wall to wall coverage we got of abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, and the hunt that was on to capture him. And perhaps she missed the massive amounts of coverage the pro-abortion crowd’s march on Washington got on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade back in January.
In contrast to that was the meager, biased coverage that the pro-life march rec’d from the media around that same time (detailed here in a post of Michelle Malkin’s back from January). Want to complain about lack of adequate coverage, Ms. Savoie? Join up with any conservative group, perhaps like the pro-life movement, and then maybe you’ll have a legitimate complaint.
It’s fine to take issue with what may look like a derelection of duty on the part of the media to report on an topic/story that is important to you, but before you start writing about it, you should 1) give it about 24 hours to start hitting the major nets and 2) even at that, you should – at the very least – examine some modern history examples of media coverage on prior related issues before assuming that the media just wants to ignore your ’cause.’ In this case, Savoie really has no case because 1) this issue is receiving widespread coverage and 2) all it takes is a simple Google search to show how widely the media covers issues that are important to feminist women.
Although if you think about it, it really shouldn’t take a Google search to tell you that.
Velvet Lair
there’s no doubt it was done by a person of faith, or as the evangelicals say, THIS WAS A FAITH BASED INITIATIVE! This is an example of a CHRISTIAN terrorist.
Was it done by a radical Christian anti-abortionist? Or was it done by a radical leftist pro-abortionist to get attention for the “cause?” Until they find out who did it, it’s an open question. Just look at all the fake hate crimes and threats that leftists have perpetrated on themselves over the past couple of years, all to “make people aware of the the seriousness of the issues” of course.
I’ll wait until I see a suspect arrested before I rush to judgment thank you.
Wow, Sarah!! You’ve already determined everything about the suspect without even meeting him/her!! You should lend your psychic abilities to the police to help solve crime!!
Quick!! What are next weeks lottery numbers for NC, I need to go buy a ticket.
Heheh! If she posts ‘em on this blog, I get a percentage of the winnings
Wow, Sarah!! You’ve already determined everything about the suspect without even meeting him/her!! You should lend your psychic abilities to the police to help solve crime!!
Some people might consider that bigotry…
She wants wider coverage……..ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Was it done by a radical Christian anti-abortionist? Or was it done by a radical leftist pro-abortionist to get attention for the “cause?” Until they find out who did it, it’s an open question. Just look at all the fake hate crimes and threats that leftists have perpetrated on themselves over the past couple of years, all to “make people aware of the the seriousness of the issues” of course.
Are you serious? I’m not a not a democrat, but I don’t believe that “Leftists” have some sinister plan to dissemble disinformation around the country to “gather support for the cause”.
That’s crazy talk. Really.
Has it ever happened? I’m sure, as it has on the right.
And while blank statements are dangerous, the absence of the ability to look at situations realistically is too.
And in this case, the presumption is that it’s a pro-life fanatic…. now, you can say it might not be, but being honest, if a car dealership or housing development was torched…would your first response be: edited. –ST eco-terrorists?
Or would it be: Let’s be prudent, it could be pro-business groups trying to “make people aware of the the seriousness of the issues” of eco-terrorism?
Not Sarah. Bigots can’t see their bigotry. They think the emit the highest level of perfect sanctity in the world. Sarah’s just another common example of the breed.
Take a little look around, this is not an uncommon tactic among the left. Leftists have vandalized their own cars, sent themselves hate mail and threats, both written and by phone, and even beaten themselves up and claimed it was done by evil ol’right wingers. The fact you don’t want to recognize it hardly makes it impossible. Given how off the wall and open loop some pro-abortion leftists have been acting, it’s not beyond the pale to think someone would do such a thing. I think it’s more likely an anti-abortionist who did it, but it is definitely possible it was someone who wanted to make a different political statement.
Just because you are ignorant of what goes on in the minds of the more loony-toons leftists doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And, I have yet to see a proven case of a conservative/right person doing such a thing, but there are about 8 examples I can think of off the cuff of leftists doing the self abuse game.
BTW Doubter, you are exactly the kind of audience such a leftist would be aiming for. Someone who will jump to conclusions and not exercise any critical thinking or skepticism. So, did you react to the Duke Lacrosse rape case the same way? Did you say “It’s obviously a case of white boys run amok further taking advantage of a poor black woman” or did you wait to see what the facts were?
Hmmmmmmm….
In the USA this is a “terrorist” act. But in Iraq, it would be the work of “insurgents” and “rebels”.
At least we now know what it takes for the hard Left to call someone a terrorist. Just hint that they are Christian (evidence is not necessary), and the T-word is pulled out of the mothballs.
Of course, if it is discovered that a pro-abortion maniac did it, it may morph back into the work of “insurgents”.
Excellent point M.D.!!!!
Fifty bucks says it’s someone claiming to be Christian.
Probably, jpe, but that kind of attitude is what is exploited when you’re involved in information warfare. Which people like Media Matters and such are actively doing. People’s tendency to jump to conclusions makes them imminently exploitable.
Funny isn’t it? It is more likely than not that it was a “Christian” anti-abortionist, and saying so is just fine with liberals.
But, if it’s one of their “favorite oppressed groups” like, say, illegal immigrants, pointing out that a crime was likely committed by such a person is suddenly racist and jumping to conclusions.
Hypocrisy for breakfast!
It may very well be, jpe. But hasn’t the Duke case taught you anything? Can we at least arrest a suspect and find out their background before you pronounce sentence on their religion?
I imagine if this was a bomb behind a synagogue and everyone was automatically accusing a muslim, you would be rushing to the defense accusing everyone of hate-mongering and prejudcie.
Fifty bucks says that’s true.
Of course, if it is discovered that a pro-abortion maniac did it, it may morph back into the work of “insurgents”.
MD, in that case, I expect the new label will be “activist”. It’s a more warm and fuzzy label.
I don’t speak for everyone on the Christian Right, but I think I have a finger on the pulse of folk up here. They were shamed by the extremism that happened in the past. I have not kept up on this but in all honesty, I can’t remember the last clinic bombing, it has been quite a few years if I do remember correctly. I do know that some of the bombings had been extemely malicious. But in all honesty, just because someone says they are a follower of Jesus Christ, doesn’t make it so. – Lorica
What’s her problem… no one’s stopping her choice to go for an abortion, why does she want to block his choice of free speech/protest? (Kidding) I mean… I bet she’d fight to the teeth for the other type of terrorists… the kind that are covering the women head to toe and beating them in Iran, etc. She would be the first without a head.
Wow, I wonder if she has a vigil for the millions killed since Roe? These are the smart ones who haven’t figured out (even with zillions of birth control options), the choice is BEFORE you lay down.
I feel my rights are violated by the state taking my tax dollars (public), to pay for these choices (private). I feel it’s rape, incest and affecting my health. s/
To Severian:
I’m not one to speculate before the facts are in, and I’ve not the slightest idea of who planted the explosives, but really–as Grissom says on “CSI,” about the principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor), “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”
Ah, I’m not one to speculate before the facts are in, but here’s my speculation. Got it!