Saturday, February 18, 2012

media matters

Is it possible that you have not heard the big story about Mitt Romney transporting the family dog in his wind-resistant kennel atop their car one day in 1983? I have seen it everywhere. At first I thought that he had just strapped the dog down sans protection given the uproar, but despite having customized the crate with wind-shields--not to mention that the dog was totally unharmed--Romney is getting a lot of coverage as an animal abuser.

Ok, I do not think I would transport my dog for a few hours in this way. Given who I am, the crate would fly off the car and cause death and injury to many. But to give a little perspective on this, do you know how animals unfit (by size) for the passenger compartment travel on airplanes? Every year, thousands of pets are crated and put in the cargo hold where there is no temperature control, where luggage shifts and rolls, and where is is impossible to check on the animal? It sounds awful, but thousands of Americans do it every year. It has been the standard way to bring your pet with you on a cross country move (or vacation).

The real rub for me, though, is how biased our media coverage is. NPR has devoted more time to covering how Romney transported his dog for a few hours on a trip that took place 3 decades ago (resulting in no harm or injury to the animal, and which method was superior to the standard method for airline travel today) than it did to Obama's radical position opposing comfort care to dying babies who survived their abortions for a few hours. And the people who are beating their self-righteous chests over Romney's wholly unharmed dog will defend Obama's stance on the Born Alive Bill (and his subsequent lies about it) for the rest of their lives, once they hear about it. And the media will exploit a political non-issue like the 1983 car trip while giving Obama a pass time and again on policies that would offend or disturb average Americans.

I am really not a one issue voter, but I hate abortion. Try reading about how it is done and not coming away with a deep sadness and sense that a terrible wrong is being done. I cannot understand how more Democrats do not try to extricate their party from pro-abortion position. I know the preferred term is pro-choice (while those who prefer it still use anti-choice or anti-abortion to refer to the pro-lifers), but when you consider the lengths they go to to prevent women from accessing information relevant to their decision (they hate consent laws--you can't pierce your ears without a parent, but pro-abortion activists think girls should get abortions without them, and condemn mandatory sonograms before accessing an abortion) it fits. Choices are best made when one has as much access to as many facts as possible. Wouldn't it be better for a mother to decide against having an abortion when she obtains more facts than to have one and regret it when she later learns more relevant information?

Unfortunately, for the unborn and for the voters, an even-handed accounting of the facts is hard to come by.


Ashley said...

Believe it or not I hadn't heard this dog story, but I don't listen to NPR and I get most of my news from social networking and the rest from Fox. The liberal media blows.

Nana said...

It is often amusingly ridiculous to observe the contortions and distortions that the NPR-types will deploy in order to validate the most horrendous methods used in the destruction of unborn children.

Erin said...

Agree, agree, agree.