Dominant Media Undercut Selves Again . . . The More Horror Grows, The More Reporting Falls Silent

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Do key players working at dominant media have a shred of conscience? The answer hasn’t been hopeful.
How many more horrors will they routinely try to avoid reporting before their deceptions become unbearable, not only to a public that sees them as lying lackeys but also to their own battered sense of moral accountability?
Day after day as September advanced, a San Francisco court hearing considered whether a trial was merited against pro-life investigators from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) who could face prison time for exposing abortionists’ large-scale sale of aborted baby parts.
Main media generally were averse to covering the proceedings, just as they reacted negatively to the CMP’s revelation of these horrors in 2015.
The abortionists themselves instead should be in legal jeopardy in Superior Court, but California’s pro-abortion establishment was out to punish and silence those who’d dare challenge them.
Aborted babies’ beating hearts and greedily grabbed brains were included in the gruesome testimony.
Keeping this quieted was fine with dominant media who’d be having a bloody fit if traffickers were accused of selling cartons of slaughtered endangered animal species. And the very idea that investigators who’d exposed such traffic would be legally in jeopardy instead of the slayers would send those media screaming in outrage into the stratosphere.
However, LifeSiteNews.com was providing regular reports of the hearing.
Always bear in mind that when dominant media minimize, hide or ignore massive abortion outrages, that’s precisely because these media fully realize their horrifying impact, desperately want the monstrous carnage to continue, but know it would not do so if the public were responsibly informed.
These media thus convict themselves of eager complicity in atrocity, which must be harshly judged.
Meanwhile in Indiana and Illinois, the macabre work of a bi-state abortionist who recently died came to light when more than 2,200 preserved bodies of his preborn victims were discovered at his home.
Like convicted murderer and proud Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the Midwest’s strange Ulrich Klopfer seemed to like keeping helpless trophies of his handiwork around. Moreover, Klopfer did some of his grim undertaking in South Bend, Ind., where pro-abortion fanatic and Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is mayor.
Just like news media that had to be shamed before they actually showed up in the courtroom to cover Gosnell’s murder trial that was so embarrassing to their bloody love affair, major media had a distinct lack of interest in revelations about Klopfer’s doings, even though politician Buttigieg — a leftist who quotes the Bible to justify permissive abortion — was an added element.
Imagine if some prominent evangelical preacher was discovered to have thousands of trophy heads of threatened species at his secluded lodge. And that, moreover, he made no secret of his support for President Trump. What month-long joyous condemnation would explode in dominant media!
David Mastio, deputy editorial-page editor at USA Today, was one voice in major media who had questions about his colleagues’ ho-hums on Klopfer.
“How does a doctor amass enough dead bodies in his garage to do a passable imitation of a World War II mass grave? Didn’t his employees notice he was taking home baby parts?” Mastio posted on September 18.
Mastio added: “How does a story this sensational — that happens to have partly taken place in presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s hometown, where he’s the mayor — not get more than cursory attention from the national news media? Now there’s a question.”
While Klopfer’s case was unique, Mastio said, there are “regular reports of shady doings at the nation’s abortion clinics.”
After Fox News’ Tucker Carlson called out Buttigieg on September 17 over his silence on the hometown scandal, the mayor apparently felt forced into making a statement. But Buttigieg hoped people wouldn’t associate the scandal with abortion.
The Washington Examiner quoted Buttigieg on September 18, after his campaign previously ignored inquiries from that news agency: “Like everyone, I find the news out of Illinois extremely disturbing, and I think it’s important that it be fully investigated. I also hope it doesn’t get caught up in politics at a time when women need access to healthcare.” Even when cornered here, his remark referenced the adjoining state of Illinois although Klopfer had toiled under the mayor’s Hoosier nose, too.
The Examiner story also recalled that Buttigieg had vetoed a zoning change that would have allowed a pro-life women’s help center to operate next to a South Bend abortion clinic.
Meanwhile, LifeSiteNews.com posted on September 17 that the Trump administration supported a federal investigation into the Klopfer case. The news service quoted White House Deputy Communications Director Judd Deere as telling RealClearPolitics:
“Murdering thousands of innocent babies is one thing, but preserving and hoarding their bodies like trophies is a new level of sickness. A full investigation is needed to determine whether crimes were committed and if anyone else was involved.”

Errors And Lapses

On another topic, The New York Times heaped fresh embarrassment on itself and those who goofily look to it as some kind of example of good journalism.
Over the weekend of September 15, nearly a full year after the Senate narrowly confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Times put out yet another ludicrous sexual hit piece echoing the same sort of trash against him last year.
Satisfied to grasp at any straw, most of the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential hopefuls rushed to demand that now-Justice Kavanaugh be impeached, then they had to crawl back in shame at gulping down the Times’ latest bait. Yet the venomously pro-abortion Times never seems to comprehend how its reputation has become far worse than an impoverished streetwalker’s.
The Washington Examiner commented on September 16: “News outlets always make errors. But throughout the 2018 Kavanaugh fight, and in the renewed scuffle sparked by the Times this week, the errors and the lapses in journalistic standards by the networks and the Times always, without fail, seem to lean in one agenda-driven direction.”
The Examiner went on to recall that Debra Katz, the attorney for Kavanaugh’s main accuser in 2018, Christine Blasey Ford, told a feminist conference in April 2019 that the two of them hoped accusations of Kavanaugh’s misconduct would taint any future rulings he might make against permissive abortion.
Katz reportedly said: “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
The phony charges were ginned up in the Washington, D.C., mill for the hidden agenda of protecting massive abortion. As the Examiner expressed it, “When it all comes down to it, this entire saga is about the right to kill babies in the womb….” Which is exactly the agenda of the abortion-crazed New York Times.
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass posted on September 18 to cite the discovery of Midwesterner Klopfer’s gruesome handiwork as being related to the attacks on Kavanaugh.
What, asked Kass, connects these? Abortion. “And abortion is what this smearing of Kavanaugh has always been about,” Kass wrote, describing a “scorched-Earth strategy” by leftists, and often cheered on in the media, to destroy whatever might inhibit legal permissive abortion.
“The strategy of the left is undeniable and clear. It is about the use of force, about relentless pressure and shame, using media as both handmaiden and the lash,” Kass wrote. “It is about those who virtue-signal most often about due process, demanding it, yet denying those same due-process considerations to those with whom they disagree.”

A Leftist Culture Warrior

Speaking of respecting due process, the left-wing Democrat mayor of Phoenix, Kate Gallego, was having none of it when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on September 16 that two young Christian artists couldn’t be compelled under the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance to produce creations opposed to their religious faith. (See news story on p. 6A of this issue.)
Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka, of the Brush & Nib Studio, didn’t refuse to serve customers, but they couldn’t conscientiously prepare, for instance, celebrations of “same-sex marriage.”
By a narrow 4-3 ruling, the state high court agreed with them.
The Arizona Capitol Times reported that Justice Andrew Gould wrote for the majority: “The enduring strength of the First Amendment is that it allows people to speak their minds and express their beliefs without government interference. But here, the City effectively cuts off plaintiffs’ right to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage by telling them what they can and cannot say.”
The ordinance carried crushing criminal penalties — including up to six months in jail and $2,500 in fines for each day that the city decided they weren’t in compliance. This wasn’t a mild municipal requirement but typical leftist mandate to destroy those who dissented.
Mayor Gallego, a leftist culture warrior who barely could contain herself, rushed to a news conference to snap out her disagreement. No diversity or freedom of thought if Mayor Kate won’t allow them. This concerned “hate” and “one business refusing to acknowledge the humanity of our LGBTQ community,” she said.
And yet Democrats always seem offended when the public is put off by their viciousness.
Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer on September 18 that “Gallego’s political base is far left of center and she sees no benefit from positioning Phoenix as welcoming to people of faith. She is playing to a base that thinks very little of people of faith or rights of conscience, etc.
“It is ironic that artists were the first people Phoenix’s law sought to oppress, given how liberal most artist communities are. But ‘First Amendment rights for me, but not for thee’ is very much in vogue with today’s left,” Querard said.