Media Confusion

The liberal media is very confused right now.   How should they report huge stories that cut against their most fondly held beliefs... that abortion on demand at any time is a sacred right, and that Obama is the untouchable high priest of 21st century liberalism?

On the first, here is how CNN reported the conviction of abortionist Kermit Gosnell:

A jury Monday found a Philadelphia abortion provider guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. 

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was accused of killing babies by using scissors to cut their spinal cords.  

Authorities alleged that some of the infants were born alive and viable during the sixth, seventh and eighth months of pregnancy. 

Monday's first-degree murder conviction means Gosnell, who is not a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist, could be sentenced to death.
 

Interesting.   Look at the grammar and syntax.   Gosnell was found guilty of murder.   But in the next sentence he is only "accused of killing babies."   And in the next sentence authorites only "alleged that some of the infants were born alive."   You could get the impression by reading this that the murder convictions were unrelated to those allegations, when the truth is that he was convicted of killing babies who had been born alive.   Those are no longer "accusations" or "allegations".... they are facts found by the trier of fact, the jury of his peers in a Philadelphia courtroom.  

The New York Times' reporting is even more egregious.   It's like Martians have landed and the Times reporters are trying to translate information that is so outside of the paradigms of their experience as to be alien:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a West Philadelphia doctor known for performing late-term abortions, was found guilty on Monday on three of four counts of first-degree murder.         

The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.
 

They simply can't bring themselves to use the correct English word for "fetuses... alive when they were removed from their mothers."    Where I come from (America) we like to call those...

BABIES!

Sheesh!

***

Meanwhile, on the IRS/Benghazi scandal watch, I have to admit a pleasant surprise that my least-favorite columnist, the Times' ultra-liberal, overripe Ivy League sorority girl, Maureen Dowd, actually had the honesty to lay into Obama over the weekend:

Welcome to a glorious spring weekend of accusation and obfuscation as Hillaryland goes up against Foxworld.         

The toxic theatrics, including Karl Rove’s first attack ad against Hillary, cloud a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.         

After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.         

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A....

In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.         

Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”
 

Pretty tough stuff from an unlikely source.   If I were reading between the lines, I might say that the mainstream media is trying to get out ahead of some really really bad revelations that they may know are coming just around the corner for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.