Fantastic moderation of discussion afterward:
Like, I think, the bulk of prolifers, I'd assumed that the lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial was deliberate. But what I've been seeing since the twitterfest has changed my mind. I think that by and large, Gosnell just sailed by under most reporters' and editors' radar. Let's face it, if you're prochoice, you're not going to pick up very quickly on an abortion scandal that doesn't take place under your very nose. But once the twitterfest blew the lid off, mainstream reporters picked up the fetid scent and many of them are on it.
Let's take Connor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story:"
Until Thursday, I wasn't aware of this story. It has generated sparse coverage in the national media, and while it's been mentioned in RSS feeds to which I subscribe, I skip past most news items. I still consume a tremendous amount of journalism. Yet had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would've been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet. Then I saw Kirsten Power's USA Today column. She makes a powerful, persuasive case that the Gosnell trial ought to be getting a lot more attention in the national press than it is getting.We made them aware. Let's justly praise them for what they've done once the blinders were taken off.