Patterico's Pontifications

8/30/2004

Revealing E-Mail from Reuters Editor

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 6:19 pm

The National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, recently received a startling e-mail from a Reuters news editor named Todd Eastham. Details are available here. And here is the text of Eastham’s e-mail, which the group says came “out of the blue”:

What’s your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?

Although Eastham’s e-mail did not purport to represent the views of Reuters, this is an interesting little window into the mindset of at least one of their news editors. One suspects that Eastham is not alone in his views.

6 Responses to “Revealing E-Mail from Reuters Editor”

  1. It is true on average that wanted children get better care than unwanted children.

    Now maybe this is a price you are willing to pay to stop abortions. Fine.

    It does not help the rationality of your argument to deny the policy you propose has costs.

    In addition I have yet to find out how in this day and age you plan to effectively enforce such laws. Remember that with syringes and plastic tubing it is possible to do D&Cs in the living room. Did I mention Ru-485?

    I don’t think you can do any better enforcing such laws that is currently being done with the drug laws.

    The question then becomes: is thte social cost (loss of respect for the rule of law) worth the social gain: making abortion somewhat harder to get?

    Over time these projects tend to mostly work against the interests of the instigators.

    So tell me – what did you learn from alcohol prohibition?

    M. Simon (929cf5)

  2. That trying to alter a whole society at once is pointless.
    But that’s not what the anti-abortion groups want to do. As the pro-choice movement says, it’s a slippery slope thing. But I don’t think that we will ever go completely one way or the other. There will always be abortions, and there will always be limits. It’s quite sad that an editor would be willing to break so freely like that. Wonder if he’d like the same arguement when he’s running off our Social Security payments.

    Back to the prohibition thing…
    Will illegal abortions happen? Sure. Will they likely be even more dangerous for the mother? Possibly. Will contraception use and pregnancy both rise? Maybe.
    Do we have a responsibility to protect those who choose to break a law and endanger themselves in the process, or do we need to worry about the defects in society caused by lawbreakers?
    You might as well say that guns can be sold without a single piece of paperwork because someone could steal or make one.

    blueeyes (682303)

  3. M. Simon, you made the following assertions:
    1. It is true on average that wanted children get better care than unwanted children.
    2. In addition I have yet to find out how in this day and age you plan to effectively enforce such laws. Remember that with syringes and plastic tubing it is possible to do D&Cs in the living room. Did I mention Ru-485?

    The problem with your assertions, is that they can also be made for infanticide. How can you use the above assertions to defend the legality of abortion, and simultaneously keeping infanticide beyond the pale of law?

    Vish (110654)

  4. You guys can go on debating abortion if you like, but my point was really about the media in general (and Reuters, and this editor, in particular).

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  5. Yes, media is evil. We already know that; there’s a Harper’s writer that tossed a RNC article at people several weeks before the RNC began. And not many newspapers out there discuss the ton and a half of uranium found in Iraq. And don’t forget the fake GI rape pictures on the front page.

    I think those show a lot more about how the media changes its world than the words of a single editor who is only speaking his or her mind.
    Hell, the disclaimer pratically proves that this editor normally tries to hold back their opinions.

    blueeyes (682303)

  6. What is also revealing is the assumption that additional people, on average, need to be “paid for” — as though you, I and even the Reuters editor aren’t net contributors to government funds.

    JSinger (9a11b0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1900 secs.