Heard of Gosnell the Butcher?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]

The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.

Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.[/quote]

Did you perchance take the time and read the links that he posted as his proof? Let me help you
http://www.latimes.com/ktla-abortion-doctor-scissors,0,4134723.story

If you take the time to look, it is actually from KTLA New from January 20 2011… [/quote]

KTLA is owned by the L.A. Times’ parent company and they use KTLA news at the L.A. Times, you nitwit.

And the story is from 2011 because this story broke in 2011. Not everybody is two years late to the party, bro.[/quote]

Just now noticing that you used a two year old story as definitive proof of your position. BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ IT FIRST you incompetent hack. Hilarious.

You know what is even funnier to me. Since I have woke up this morning I have worked out, set an all time PR in bench, taken my family to church and then on to a great lunch. Went to my store to check sales fot the weekend,I then went to the nursery fot two loads of mulch.

By the end of the day I will have mowed four acres, mulched my wife’s flower beds, had a nice dinner and in the tiny spaces in between I managed to expose you for the incompetent hack that you really are.

But remember, you can get better. I actually believe you have it in you.

62

[quote]JEATON wrote:
set up a strawman [/quote]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. [/quote]

No strawmen here.

I will reiterate here that not only were you utterly defeated over the course of this thread, you were also–quite typically–extremely rude and bitter toward me, a development which, as I said earlier, smacks of envy born of self-aware inferiority.

You have twice in recent months gone very far out of your way to insult me, despite the fact that I’ve never particularly engaged with you in discussion (again, I come here to converse with intelligent and friendly people, and you are a far cry from either of those).

I can’t say I won the first time around, because there was nothing to win: there was no factual disagreement, it was merely you expressing your low opinion of me. Though I will note that a number of posters came to my defense, and were each of them among the best posters on TN.

This time, we did have a substantive dispute. And I won. Boy, did I win. And now we have an intelligent and reserved a poster as Dr. Matt weighing in to try and help you understand that.

63

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

-jeaton posted article about NETWORK coverage (which you later stated you didnt even care what it said)
[/quote]

The main problem here is that the article in the OP points out that a handful of major news television programs, specifically the morning and evening news programs of NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this case ON TELEVISION SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (bolded for emphasis, and as far as I can tell this is a true claim) and then goes on to call this a “complete blackout of news coverage” despite the fact that there are many other types of news coverage, and smh has already shown numerous times that this “compete blackout of news coverage” is untrue, evidenced by several quick internet searches that he then posted.

Then, despite the very narrow focus of the type of media coverage and companies that were not covering the story, JEATON (and the article in the OP) then made the claim that there was “zero mainstream media coverage” at all. He, and the article in the OP, drop the narrow focus of the introduction in the article and go on to make false and unwarranted claims based on a very narrow, and true statement. JEATON specifically mentioned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and others that had nothing to do with the very narrow true statement in the article from the OP and smh then showed him that he was wrong.[/quote]

Did you perchance take the time and read the links that he posted as his proof? Let me help you
http://www.latimes.com/ktla-abortion-doctor-scissors,0,4134723.story

If you take the time to look, it is actually from KTLA New from January 20 2011… [/quote]

KTLA is owned by the L.A. Times’ parent company and they use KTLA news at the L.A. Times, you nitwit.

And the story is from 2011 because this story broke in 2011. Not everybody is two years late to the party, bro.[/quote]

Just now noticing that you used a two year old story as definitive proof of your position. BECAUSE YOU NEVER READ IT FIRST you incompetent hack. Hilarious.

You know what is even funnier to me. Since I have woke up this morning I have worked out, set an all time PR in bench, taken my family to church and then on to a great lunch. Went to my store to check sales fot the weekend,I then went to the nursery fot two loads of mulch.

By the end of the day I will have mowed four acres, mulched my wife’s flower beds, had a nice dinner and in the tiny spaces in between I managed to expose you for the incompetent hack that you really are.

But remember, you can get better. I actually believe you have it in you.
[/quote]

The L.A. Times covered the story.

You don’t like the date of the story? [I will reiterate that if you were smart enough to read real newspapers, you would have known about this butcher a long, long time ago]

Then focus on the other couple hundred pieces I noted.

Huffpost from a few days ago.

AP from the 4th.

NYT from the open of the trial.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Hundreds.

Edited

64

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Eyes are starting to open Buttercup and you are seeing it too. Nice late minute research addendums after you phoned it in earlier and proclaimed victory.

Too bad you can’t always take a story, change the narrative, set up a strawman and go to battle with him.

Or wait, you are a reporter right. Then I guess you can. [/quote]

This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.

65

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. [/quote]

JEATON:

Is this true?

Or is it false?

[b]Is it true?

Or

Is it false?[/b]

Has there been “absolutely zero mainstream coverage” of Gosnell?

Or has there not?

My entire argument in this thread has been a refutation of that claim, that you made. With a related claim of my own thrown in: that people who read newspapers have known about this for a long time, and have all of the relevant information on it.

And I’ve been right.

Correct?

Demonstrably right. Provably correct.

Which means that you’ve been demonstrably wrong. Provably incorrect.

End of the story.

66

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Eyes are starting to open Buttercup and you are seeing it too. Nice late minute research addendums after you phoned it in earlier and proclaimed victory.

Too bad you can’t always take a story, change the narrative, set up a strawman and go to battle with him.

Or wait, you are a reporter right. Then I guess you can. [/quote]

This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

[i]But…but…but…but some of those articles were from 2011! Sure, 2011 was when this particular story broke, so that’s natural. And sure, the case has been in legal limbo for two years with very little news developing between the investigation/grand jury indictment and the trial’s open. And sure, many of the hundreds upon hundreds of articles smh posted were dated 2013 and covered the opening of the trial itself. But…but…but I still don’t like him! He is just so mean. He was so mean to the Jaypierce guy…you know, the one who said 9/11 was an inside job and Sandy Hook was a theatrical production.

And…and…and worst of all, smh frequently disagrees with me! And when I say stuff that isn’t true, he points out the fact that I’ve said something that isn’t true!

Why isn’t everybody siding with me here!?!?!?!?[/i]

67

Correction: not Reuters from a few days ago, AP from a few days ago.

Anyway, I think that this has been pretty much settled, no?

68

[quote]JEATON wrote:
And remember, my post was about ABC NBC and CBS. I let him run with it because I suspected he would do exactly as he did.
[/quote]

No, it wasn’t and you are embarrassing yourself even further by claiming that it was only after I pointed out that the only factual statement in the article from the OP was that the morning and evening television news shows on NBC, ABC and CBS had not covered the Gosnell story SINCE THE TRIAL BEGAN (again, an important emphasis). The article and yourself both then went on to proclaim a “complete blackout of news coverage” (that quote is from the article, quotes from you will follow shortly) that is clearly and demonstrable false (smh has provided literally hundreds of examples).

Not once in this thread did you limit this “lack of media coverage” to just NBC, ABC, and CBS, let alone just morning and evening television news shows. In fact, let us go to page 1, post 6 your second and third attempts at sentences:

No mention of just those three stations, or a statement limiting it to just morning and evening television news.

Now let us go down to the eighth post on the thread:

If you were only discussing NBC, ABC, and CBS then why did you challenge smh to provide examples from these other news sources, which he did? After all, you supposedly only claimed that NBC, ABC, and CBS were not covering the story so what did those news sources have to do with anything?

69

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Correction: not Reuters from a few days ago, AP from a few days ago.

Anyway, I think that this has been pretty much settled, no?[/quote]

You settled this seven posts into this thread. The rest is just a lot of very entertaining reiterating and expanding of your evidence.

70

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.

71

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.[/quote]

I was speaking in generalities and not specifically about the story itself, but the reflexive conclusion that JEATON took from it. The party platform that would apply in this case would be the far right’s (and JEATON’s) unwavering belief that “mainstream” media is inherently and inevitably biased to propagate the “liberal agenda” and censors anything that could undermine said agenda.

72

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Eyes are starting to open Buttercup and you are seeing it too. Nice late minute research addendums after you phoned it in earlier and proclaimed victory.

Too bad you can’t always take a story, change the narrative, set up a strawman and go to battle with him.

Or wait, you are a reporter right. Then I guess you can. [/quote]

This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

[i]But…but…but…but some of those articles were from 2011! Sure, 2011 was when this particular story broke, so that’s natural. And sure, the case has been in legal limbo for two years with very little news developing between the investigation/grand jury indictment and the trial’s open. And sure, many of the hundreds upon hundreds of articles smh posted were dated 2013 and covered the opening of the trial itself. But…but…but I still don’t like him! He is just so mean. He was so mean to the Jaypierce guy…you know, the one who said 9/11 was an inside job and Sandy Hook was a theatrical production.

And…and…and worst of all, smh frequently disagrees with me! And when I say stuff that isn’t true, he points out the fact that I’ve said something that isn’t true!

Why isn’t everybody siding with me here!?!?!?!?[/i][/quote]

Pretty good, but I think the pejorative “buttercup” needs to be thrown in. Clearly, if you aren’t TRULY conservative like JEATON is, your masculinity (or lack thereof) is a forgone conclusion to those who haven’t been indoctrinated by the liberal agenda. This entire thread bears a striking resemblance to the California tax “debate.”

73

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.[/quote]

I was speaking in generalities and not specifically about the story itself, but the reflexive conclusion that JEATON took from it. The party platform that would apply in this case would be the far right’s (and JEATON’s) unwavering belief that “mainstream” media is inherently and inevitably biased to propagate the “liberal agenda” and censors anything that could undermine said agenda.
[/quote]

Ah, I see your point now. My mistake.

74

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/338908.php#338908

Good commentary on it.

I love Ace, if you’re into blogs and stupid humor, it is a good read.[/quote]

Thanks for the find. just bookmarked it.

Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. I officially have nothing but contempt left for democrat/media complex.
[/quote]

Matt, I think you are forgetting this in its entirety. After all, it was I who had posted the original article .

The quote above, which SMH is desperately basing his who defense on, and you are using to judge everything else, is in reference to Counting Beans post…

"April 05, 2013
26 Were Killed in Newtown; Seven Were Slaughtered in Kermit Gosnell’s Death-Lab.
So, the Media’s Done About One Story on the Gosnell Trial for Every Four on Newtown, Right?
Riiiiiiight.

That 4:1 ratio is very nearly correct; it’s off by only one. It’s 4:0."

Context is important.

It is after this that I opened the door to the inclusion of newspaper which worked out so wonderfully for SMH.

Either way, I’m not a peer review/confirmation bias kind of guy so I’ll just go on the facts.

75

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.[/quote]

Matt,

All BS aside, are you seriously stating that you believe the lake of coverage has nothing to do with liberal media bias. That the sensational and gruesome nature of the trial and events would not draw an audience. Is this your belief?

76

[quote]JEATON wrote:
Matt, I think you are forgetting this in its entirety. After all, it was I who had posted the original article .

The quote above, which SMH is desperately basing his who defense on, and you are using to judge everything else, is in reference to Counting Beans post…

"April 05, 2013
26 Were Killed in Newtown; Seven Were Slaughtered in Kermit Gosnell’s Death-Lab.
So, the Media’s Done About One Story on the Gosnell Trial for Every Four on Newtown, Right?
Riiiiiiight.

That 4:1 ratio is very nearly correct; it’s off by only one. It’s 4:0."

Context is important.

It is after this that I opened the door to the inclusion of newspaper which worked out so wonderfully for SMH.

Either way, I’m not a peer review/confirmation bias kind of guy so I’ll just go on the facts.
[/quote]

Are you serious? This is an honest question: Is this a serious post?

77

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.[/quote]

Very good point.

There is very little major political tension in this story–it is the story of a gruesome murderer, no doubt. And it certainly has some philosophical implications for the abortion debate (the murders of these babies were not all that different from some legal abortions that are taking place around the country, and that is a notion of some political significance).

But this isn’t the kind of story that the NYT or the the WSJ or Washpost is going to devote tons of inches to. It’s a murder trial, essentially, and because it’s full of lurid details it’s going to play well among certain groups of people–people who lap up the sensational, etc. The NY Post crowd. People who expect things to be harped on; people who lived and breathed Casey Anthony, etc.

But for relatively intelligent people–even relatively intelligent people who tend to be either totally against abortion or in favor of restricting abortion much further–the coverage that the NYT and Washpost and etc. have given this phenomenon has been adequate. As I tried to explain to JEATON, I’ve known about Gosnell for two years now. I have all of the relevant details, and I’ve had them in a timelier fashion than JEATON himself has. And I got the from the New York Times.

Do I need anybody to keep driving the point into my skull? No. I know what’s going on. I will want to know if something huge develops during the trial, and I’ll want to know both the verdict and the sentence.

In other words, when I read the news, I want to be reading the fucking news. I want new developments. I got every new development on Gosnell from the mainstream. Go figure.

78

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/338908.php#338908

Good commentary on it.

I love Ace, if you’re into blogs and stupid humor, it is a good read.[/quote]

Thanks for the find. just bookmarked it.

Seriously. Absolutely zero mainstream coverage. I officially have nothing but contempt left for democrat/media complex.
[/quote]

Matt, I think you are forgetting this in its entirety. After all, it was I who had posted the original article .

The quote above, which SMH is desperately basing his who defense on, and you are using to judge everything else, is in reference to Counting Beans post…

"April 05, 2013
26 Were Killed in Newtown; Seven Were Slaughtered in Kermit Gosnell’s Death-Lab.
So, the Media’s Done About One Story on the Gosnell Trial for Every Four on Newtown, Right?
Riiiiiiight.

That 4:1 ratio is very nearly correct; it’s off by only one. It’s 4:0."

Context is important.

It is after this that I opened the door to the inclusion of newspaper which worked out so wonderfully for SMH.

Either way, I’m not a peer review/confirmation bias kind of guy so I’ll just go on the facts.
[/quote]

Jesus. I thought it would be fun to watch you squirm, but it isn’t.

Just stop. This is embarrassing for you.

You made a couple of factually inaccurate remarks. There is no way to get around that fact, because those remarks are sitting right there on the first page of this thread.

There’s nothing wrong with that. We are all wrong sometimes.

It was made worse in this particular instance because you called me out and then flailed like a malevolent imbecile when you were shown to have been wrong. That’s not cool. And I’d be lying if I said that, given your strange animosities toward me, I wasn’t seriously happy to have seen you make such a goddamn fool of yourself over the course of this thread–a point which, I hope you’re noting, seems to be general consensus, yes?

All that’s left is to give up. You challenged me like a taunting middle-schooler, and then you got utterly thumped. Utterly thumped. To borrow a phrase of Push’s, you’ve got egg all over your face.

The only thing left to do is clean up and move on.

79

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Pretty good, but I think the pejorative “buttercup” needs to be thrown in. Clearly, if you aren’t TRULY conservative like JEATON is, your masculinity (or lack thereof) is a forgone conclusion to those who haven’t been indoctrinated by the liberal agenda. This entire thread bears a striking resemblance to the California tax “debate.”[/quote]

Indeed, shame on me for having forgotten such a mordant insult as “buttercup.”

Although, I think that, in general, the guy who’s using the term “buttercup” to describe a much younger man than himself is the one whose heterosexuality is suspect.

80

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
This thread is a textbook example of the lengths an ideologue will go to conform to preconceived biases and party platforms. The end result is an otherwise rational individual abandoning any semblance of logic or critical thinking. It’s woefully pathetic and everyone but JEATON sees it.[/quote]

The funny thing is that this story has little to nothing to do with party platforms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate at all. The fact that these crimes took place in an abortion clinic is incidental. After reading the information available, it seems pretty clear that Gosnell’s conviction is a foregone conclusion and my guess is this is why his trial did not get any coverage on the limited time available on these specific television news programs. A trial where there is virtually no question on whether or not there will be a conviction is not really compelling news, which is why most of the recent coverage has been in written articles.[/quote]

Matt,

All BS aside, are you seriously stating that you believe the lake of coverage has nothing to do with liberal media bias. That the sensational and gruesome nature of the trial and events would not draw an audience. Is this your belief?
[/quote]

This. Lets just go with this one. Serious question.