Back from hiatus

It's been a few months but I've finally been inspired to begin blogging anew. Loyal Logic Connection readers everywhere can now rejoice in unison (or, feel free to rejoice in the comments). I'll be back soon to give an update on the status of the podcast and maybe even review Javier's new CD.

My most recent inspiration? an article from Creative Loafing - Charlotte (CL) about a crisis pregnancy center here in Charlotte. I read CL from time to time, usually when it's in the breakroom or I'm working uptown and I pass a new edition on the street. As a super uptight, conservative Republican I know I'm not the intended audience for the magazine, but I still enjoy reading the commentary and checking the music section so I don't miss an upcoming Javier performance. Even though I may not agree with everything written in CL, I still expect a certain level of professionalism from the writers, especially from those writing "news" pieces as opposed to opinion pieces. I felt compelled to respond to the piece linked above because I believe it fell well below the level of professional journalistic standards CL should strive for if it wants to maintain its credibility as a source of news in Charlotte.

I would encourage you to read the piece above even though it is somewhat lengthy, and then read my response below (also somewhat lengthy). I'm simply copying my response from the comments at CL, which was copied from the text of an email I sent the author, but since it appears Ms. Hodges doesn't respond to her commenters I'm also jumping back on the neglected twitter account to send her a tweet. If this were simply an opinion piece written by Ms. Hodges I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the article. The problem for me is the title of "News Reporter" given to Ms. Hodges on the inside cover of CL and the pretense of objectivity that title is supposed to convey. If you believe her article is an objective news piece I welcome your feedback in the comments.

My response:

I just finished reading your article, "Papa Don't Preach," and I wanted to send along my comments. Full disclosure, I am a Republican, but I do enjoy reading CL even if I don't always agree with the content. Although I do agree with some of the points you raise in your article like that these centers shouldn't receive taxpayer funding and how the PRC in Charlotte doesn't explicitly state their religious affiliation on their website, you lost credibility with me by failing to be objective. I'm not a journalist but it was my understanding journalists presented the facts and allowed the readers to draw their own conclusions? I could be wrong, but it seemed to me you had an agenda in writing the piece, why not just state your position from the beginning without hiding behind the pretense of objectivity?

- Was it really necessary to go undercover for this assignment? It seems like you could have received the same information by making a few phone calls.
- "Alexandria" is essentially an unnamed, off the record, source. I don't doubt she exists, but hers is only one story that seems to be in the article to confirm your own bias. How did you come across her and why not seek out other opinions of women who have patronized the center? Did Alexandria refuse consent to be prayed with or to watch the fetus video? You make it seem as if she had no choice in either. You didn't cite any forcible prayer in your own story.
- NARAL, aka Natl Assoc. for Repeal of Abortion Laws, aka Natl Abortion Rights Action League, do they not have an agenda of their own contrary to that of the "crisis pregnancy centers" your piece focuses on? Would their own bias not be relevant to your readers? Are they not one of the largest lobbying organizations for abortions in the country?
- Is there a direct connection between the results of the NARAL investigation you cite and this specific center in Charlotte? What specific inaccurate information did you receive upon your visit to the center in Charlotte? Is this specific center funded by taxpayer dollars or not? If none of the findings apply to this specific center, why not point this out to your readers?
- You state the information collected is not protected by HIPPA yet you failed to identify any instances of actual disclosure by any pregnancy center. Have there been such disclosures? If so, has there been legal action by patients whose privacy has been violated? How are the doctors and nurses who work at these centers allowed to keep their licenses to practice medicine if they knowingly violate patient privacy?
- You state Planned Parenthood does not have a financial interest in the decision to adopt or abort. But then in the next paragraph you state PP reinvests the money it makes back into health services, including abortions. If PP does not make money by providing abortions then how do they make money? If abortions don't cost patients, who does pay for them? That seems to me to be an issue of fact, easily resolved, without taking sides for or against abortion or taxpayer funding of PP. And doesn't PP received taxpayer funds itself much like some of the crisis pregnancy centers?
- Your final paragraph quotes Pope claiming an "ideological agenda" on the part of crisis pregnancy centers. Isn't it fair to say PP and NARAL have their own "ideological agendas?" Pope adds that that "agenda" puts the health of pregnant women at risk. Do abortions not also pose certain health risks to pregnant women?