CNN's Bias Exposed....or is it?

I write about many things that are close to my heart; this subject rates in the top five. I do not understand how folks can so easily dismiss another human being who is so innocent, so fragile, so vulnerable. Here is a snippet of a story that cuts to the chase of one media organization's bias towards one side of an issue. They consistently claim objectivity, but the reality is only hidden from the already sold. Please see the following link for the video in question:

www.catholicvote.org

Dear CatholicVote.org Member,

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.


Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org



P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Rest assured, we are working hard on the next phase of this campaign. Thank you for your continued prayers and support.

This message was intended for: mikepoast@gmail.com
You were added to the system January 20, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

The Right Wing View on Unwanted Pregnancy

I post a lot of very hotly debated topics on my blog and on Face Book because I see a great deal on confusion in them. Consequently we never get past the emotions of any one particular issue which leaves us to make decisions at the ballot box with lacking or faulty information. I know none of us wants to do this, so I try to crate debate and open conversation whenever I can.

Recently a friend asked what I thought, specifically, about the issue of unwanted pregnency. I truely appreciate his candor in the question and was happy to divulge my belifes on the subject, of course backed up with facts.

I do not have his permission to post this, so I will not give his name.

Feel free to add what you think is missing..

"So the right wing view is... "You have to have this severely deformed child no one will adopt and you cannot afford and no, we will not provide any assistance in raising it because it is your own fault because you did not learn about birth control on your own because sex education shouldn't be taught in school and your parents were absent because law makers were influenced by a religion which we are "free" not to subscribe too"? I'm not sure, but sometimes I think I hear this."

First off I do not think you will find many conservatives who would say that they are against helping a struggling single mother to raise her child. You have a multitude of social aspects that lead us to the circumstance that you purport. I think you would agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for it to go down exactly as you have suggested. Public policy must be made on reality. I cannot speak for all but the general thought is that situations like the one you have described are first off better handled by the charity/private sector in the community as they are closer to the person and most likely know the details of the lives we are talking about. Secondly, if government is to get involved, it is best handled at the local and state levels. Nowhere in The Constitution does it provide Congress with the power, or authority, to meddle in such things. State and local governments have way more latitude in these areas.

Second, on the "unwanted/deformed child" argument; I do not know when it came to be considered good policy that an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else wanting them. Better watch out for the application of the equal protection clause of The 14th Amendment because you and I are next, as I am sure someone doesn't want us‼ I do not think that anyone would argue with Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child is a wanted child,” but the idea that another human being’s right to life is contingent upon another human being’s deeming them “wanted,” reminds me of Hitler’s Germany. Remember that anyone who was not “Aryan” was not “wanted.” If you do not want a child…do not have sex. Why is the decision not to have sex beyond the ability of some, but the decision to have an abortion completely OK?

Third, your adoption argument: In 2006 there were 200,000 couples who wanted to adopt and only 25,000 babies available for adoption. I do not have current #’s but the point is that there are many more “parents” who want to adopt, who are forced to go to foreign countries, than babies available. Further, most abortions occur as a result of misused, or not used, or failed contraceptives. So we are removing the need for the responsible thinking that should always precede these decisions because we are removing all consequences.

Fourth, sex education should not be taught in a one-size-fits-all fashion. This whole debate brings us back to school choice and the need for the principal of federalism. State and local governments should deal with education, not The Federal government. There is no clause in The Constitution giving The Federal Government this power. If this were the case then you and I would choose schools for our children where this subject was taught in a manner in keeping with our belief system. I no more want to force you to believe what I believe than you do me or any one so let’s stop empowering The Federal Government to force our beliefs on others!!

Pope Pelosi At the Gate

"In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins."

read more | digg story

Look Before You Judge...or Pope Paul IV Was Right!

Who the hell am I? I mean i don't know everything, even though I am very sure of quite a bit. The world is a crazy place and it is extremely difficult to know who to believe. For me, track record says a lot. If what you say pans out I am going to listen up a little more the next time you have something to say; just makes sense right?

Well Pope Paul IV had something to say 40 years ago, and you could argue that it's all coincidence, that's fine. You should look into it though.

Forty years after "Humane Vitae"

BY FATHER PETER J. DALY

There was an eruption in the Catholic Church 40 years ago over the release of Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae ("Of Human Life").

At the time, secular culture pronounced it a "dead letter." Cultural critics said the church was out of touch with the modern age on the role of human sexuality.

"Humanae Vitae" was blamed for the erosion of respect for the church's moral teaching and the departure of many people from the Catholic Church.

But, at the time, secular culture made some pretty extravagant claims for the virtues of artificial contraception. Forty years on, it is worth asking: What about the claims of secular culture? Were they right?

Happier marriages?
The first birth control pill came on the market in the early 1960s. It was featured on the cover of news magazines. It was talked about on television. People said it would usher in a new and happier age of sexual relations.

Did it?

Forty years ago it was said that artificial contraception would make marriages happier and more stable. Freed from the stress of many children, married couples would be better able to concentrate on each other and their marriage.

So what happened?
The divorce rate has skyrocketed. Marriages are less stable. There were many cultural factors involved, of course, but whatever can be said about birth control, it has not made marriages happier or more stable in U.S. culture.

Forty years ago it was said that the pill would mean more fulfilled sex lives. People could be more spontaneous. Sex would be more joyful. People would be less repressed.

Did it happen?

Separating the sexual act from conception has degraded the meaning of sex, caused it to lose its significance. Instead of being special, a sign of love and commitment reserved for husbands and wives, it is now commonplace.
When something becomes commonplace it loses its allure. Ice cream and cake, for example, are special if reserved for birthdays. If eaten all the time, they are boring, even damaging.

Anti-child mentality
The pill has meant that sex is meaningless, the stuff of sit-coms and lurid talk shows.
In our modern world sex has nothing to do with making babies. It also has very little to do with making love. The surreal "Sex in the City" world has turned everyone into a sex object, because sex is seen as an act without meaning or consequence. It has more to do with giving pleasure to the self than showing love for the other.

Forty years ago the advocates for contraception said that it would mean fewer unwanted children. There would be less child abuse and neglect because children would be more wanted since they were more "planned."

Ironically, today children seem less wanted. They are seen not as gifts from God but as financial burdens. Television reporters do stories on the "total cost" of raising a child as if children could be compared to buying a boat or second home.

With the ability to prevent pregnancy came the presumption that you should prevent pregnancy. Babies are now regarded as a burden. Large families are regarded with derision even in Catholic circles.

Birth control has led to an anti-child mentality.

When a woman today begins to show with a third or fourth pregnancy, people ask her, "Did you make a mistake, dear?"

Forty years ago there was an explosion in the church over "Humanae Vitae." Now that the dust has begun to settle a bit, it seems that secular culture was wrong about many of its claims for birth control.

It helps to take the long view. Maybe that is God's view?

Catholic News Service

Father Peter J. Daly writes on church life from his parish, St. John Vianney in Prince Frederick, Md. He may be contacted at cns@Catholicnews.com.

Does The Majority Truely Rule?

There's nothing inherently noble about a majority of people agreeing on a particular issue. Indeed, bad ideas often prove more popular than good ones. It's only when popular majorities are anchored to the idea of inalienable rights that they're most entitled to our respect. Without that underlying commitment to individualism, majority rule can and frequently will degenerate into the loss of liberty for unpopular minorities. The racist policies of the Jim Crow South, after all, were often extremely popular among white voters.

So before we get too misty over the will of the people of South Dakota, let's remember that James Madison warned us about the tyranny of the majority, not the tyranny of unfettered individual liberty.

Read the Constitution lately?

It is truly disgusting what our elected officials do on a daily basis with the power we lend to them.

This article will, on it's surface, appear as though it is about the abortion debate. While that is a debate that I engage in, and am more than motivated to discuss, I wish to highlight what might otherwise be overlooked. This is supposed to be an Iraq War Supplemental Bill and one of our illustrious "representatives" felt it was a good idea to tack on a provision that has nothing to do with the war. Now, you can agree or disagree on the war, and you can agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but you must, in all candor, be with me when I say that the name of any bill should be in close alignment with it's contents.

One of the sneaky little tricks in Washington is something called an earmark. It occurs on both sides of the aisle and it is, in this humble thinker's opinion, tantamount to blatantly violating one's oath of office. In its essence it is a money laundering scheme with Tax Payer dollars and You should be thrown out of office for doing such things.

read more digg story

Choice

Why is the term “choice” always only applied to the operation that is so debated these days?

Do you choose to say hello to another?

How about choosing to relinquish you personal information with an attractive person?

Is there someone forcing you to communicate with another against your own better “choice”?

Are you obligated, coerced, prodded or forced to meet with someone over coffee, a drink or a meal?

Are you not familiar with where this is going?

Do you not have the responsibility to consider the path upon which you trod?

Are you choosing to spend more time than you would like with someone?

Do the lights of the bedroom turn off against your will?

Are there armed guards forcing your cloths to fly off of you in that passionate embrace?

Would you please circle the events and the thoughts that took place above where you did not exercise a right to choose?

We all make a multitude of decisions in our life, some are stupid, some are intelligent and still some pass by our cerebral cortex with out even stopping to say hello, never to be seen again. It is, I believe, only human to wish that a choice made were re-presented to be chosen differently, but time travel is still only science fiction.

The facts remain, in this life, that words mean things and actions have consequences. You may not enjoy the meaning or the consequence, but your displeasure with a reality does not alter the fact of its existence. Sex has life changing implications, as do many of the choices with which we are presented.

If you discover, one day, that you are pregnant, with very rare exception, you have already made many choices to bring you to this place. Your choices and rights, from this point, can only rightfully be made while considering that the life, now growing within you, is banking on you to help him or her with their Right to Choose.