An Often-Missed Example of Media Bias

It’s no secret that the mainstream media consistently skewers left. On social, cultural, and political issues, the mainstream media regularly biases stories against the conservative viewpoint (all while feigning balance).

But there is an example of media bias that many people often overlook—the very selection of stories itself is biased. In other words, while the media often spins stories towards the liberal perspective, there is a deeper kind of bias that operates on the level of which stories are even covered in the first place.

Media Bias Abortion

Kirsten Powers revealed this kind of bias when she wrote a scathing critique of the media regarding its non-coverage of the Kermit Gosnell story. In case you missed it, Gosnell is a mass murderer who snipped the heads of babies born alive. And remember, Powers is a self-proclaimed liberal democrat.

This past week I saw the same kind of bias at work. Time is one of the few physical magazines I still read (along with the Christian Research Journal and First Things). Time regularly has a brief interview of “10 Questions” with some noteworthy person at the back of each print edition.

The interviewee this past week was Dr. Willie Parker, an OB-GYN who is an abortion provider. The title of the article is, “Abortion Provider Dr. Willie Parker Talks About His Deep Christian Faith.” (Newsweek also ran a story on Dr. Parker as well). Before reading the interview, my initial thought was:

“Why is TIME interviewing him? Why not interview an outspoken pro-lifer advocate, such as Scott Klusendorf, who is also an author? Why not interview a director of a pregnancy resource center about the remarkable explosion of PRCs over the last couple decades? Why not interview Patricia Layton, who has written a hopeful book for women suffering from post-abortion guilt. Again, why him?”

The answer is actually quite simple: The story of Dr. Parker helps advance the narrative that TIME, and much of the mainstream media want to communicate about abortion, namely, that it is merciful, just, necessary, and even the Christian thing to do. In case you missed it, or there was any lingering doubt, editors inserted the word “Deep” into the title to ensure readers that Dr. Parker is really a Christian.

Not only does Dr. Parker begin the interview by emphasizing his Christian faith, he cites both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Good Samaritan story as his motivations for helping women “safely end their pregnancies.” It’s clear he has carefully thought through how to best communicate his pro-choice views to critics.

The point of this article is not to critique his reasons for supporting abortion. Maybe he offers them in his recent book (which, by the way, is one other reason why TIME interviews him).

Even though I regularly read articles and books from contrary perspectives, I don’t think I can stomach reading his, and to be honest, I won’t spend a dime that may benefit his efforts. I can understand why some non-believers might be pro-choice. After all, if you don’t believe that every human being is made in the imago dei, then it’s easier to find abortion justifiable (for the record, I know there are people from a variety of worldviews who are pro-life for different reasons).

But how a Christian doctor can support the intentional killing of precious unborn human persons simply horrifies me. I have no words to describe my shock and disgust. I cried when I first read the interview. And I have been praying for Dr. Parker and his patients ever since.

I deeply hope that he will reconsider his views and embrace the biblical view that all life has value regardless of its age, race, gender, size, or socioeconomic status. I do respect his desire to be compassionate towards women, but I hope he soon realizes there is a better way to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies than taking the life of helpless, tiny persons in the womb.

But in the meantime, TIME and the rest of the mainstream media are more than happy to co-opt his story to propagate their larger cultural agenda. And they will ignore stories that don’t.

Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
13 replies
  1. Ed Vaessen says:

    “And remember, Powers is a self-proclaimed liberal democrat.”

    Would it have made any difference if he had proclaimed himself to be a communist, Muslim, social-democrat, christian democrat, republican or whatever?

    • Kalmaro says:

      Yes, it matters what they proclaim themselves so because that informs you of the biases that normally follows. You would expect a self proclaimed liberal to behave differently than a communist due to this beliefs.

      The issue had its that liberal Democrats general are seen as trying to portray acceptance and being fair to everyone but the author of this article points out that they don’t and shuts favoritism by ignoring the Gosnell incidents.

  2. Ed Vaessen says:

    Reading the contributions of mr. McDowell on this site, we understand why he bears no scientific credentials of any importance.

    • Tim says:

      So Ed, to apply your own standard, what journalistic credentials of any importance do you hold to contribute comments to this site? Also, who’s “we”? Do you hold an opinion independent of those formed by “we”?

    • Craig says:

      if Mr McDowell had an MD JD or PHd or some other kind of H2SO4 after a sceintific discipline, would it cause you to change your view?

      this issue has no more to do with science than does the price of tea in China. science will only tell you what is or what was, itll never tell you what ought or should

  3. ANTHONY says:

    I think you mean “skews left” not “skewers”. Anyway, a balanced position would be the centre ground. Conservatism is a position on the right. Therefore, of course a balanced view would appear to skew left to a conservative.

    • Abrondon Jones says:

      I was thinking the same thing 🙂 … but then wondered if “skewers” is somehow an appropriate malapropism in this case.

  4. Abrondon Jones says:

    Another example of bias in the abortion debate coverage is the increasing use of the term “Anti-Choice” as a replacement for “Pro-Life.” I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this if “Pro-Choice” is replaced with “Anti-Life” … but of course they don’t do that.

    • Andy Ryan says:

      You can be pro-choice without being pro-abortion, just like you can support people’s right to vote Democrat (or GOP) without actually being a Democrat (or Republican) yourself.

  5. Bryan says:

    “But how a Christian doctor can support the intentional killing of precious unborn human persons simply horrifies me.”

    When Jimmy Kimmel’s infant son had to have heart surgery, this was one Christians response: “Sorry Jimmy Kimmel: your sad story doesn’t obligate me or anybody else to pay for somebody else’s health care.”

    The horrible part is the hypocrisy. Born or unborn, why not extend protection to all children no matter the cost?

      • toby says:

        Worse than that, people are too stupid to vote for their own self interest rather than some political ideology fed to them by some party they identify with. “We can’t having single payer healthcare because people have to work for their own . . . but don’t you dare cut defense spending ‘cuz we gots to kill and everyone has to pay for that!”


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *