PA v. Gosnell: Why the Media Balked

Some of you may be familiar with the case of PA v. Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortion provider accused of multiple counts of first degree murder for the deaths of living infants and Karnamaya Mongar, 41. The doctor was found guilty of three counts of first degree murder this week for the deaths of three children.  He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for Mongar's death. In addition to the murder charges, Gosnell was also found guilty of twenty-one counts of abortion of the unborn where the fetuses were beyond twenty-four weeks gestation.  With the verdict delivered, the case was to proceed to the penalty phase, where jurors consider evidence in mitigation and in aggravation.  Gosnell could have received the death penalty.  But according to CNN, Gosnell agreed today to forgo appeal and the prosecution has agreed to not pursue the death penalty.  But unlike the Jodi Arias trial, you haven't heard wall-to-wall coverage of this gruesome case.  You won't hear all the intimate details of how Gosnell spends money from his commissary account.  And, although you will see some media coverage of the case, you may very well only hear about the result of the penalty phase as it blips across your Twitter feed.

Why?

The case received some media attention when it first broke.  As the trial neared, however, it did not receive as much attention as one might have anticipated.  Media outlets themselves have been engaged in an argument about how much coverage the case has received.  Some have even used it as a battering ram against other media outlets.  My purpose is not to engage in the "who covered it better" debate.  I am more interested in the fact that coverage has been overall light. One might have expected ample coverage because of the sordid and graphic details outlined in the grand jury indictment.  In fact, this writer thinks the indictment is one of the most extraordinary legal documents she has ever read.  The clinic was described as a "hell hole," where women and babies were left to suffer in deplorable conditions.  The case also smelled of racial injustice, as white women were often escorted to a more sanitary upper story room while poor women of color were left to deal with deplorable conditions in the clinic's primary space.  If the allegations laid out in the indictment were found to be true, one could hardly imagine a more suitable monster story for our times.  Surely - surely the media would ride with this one.

But business is the media these days.  Because the media is really just a means for advertisers to entice "consumers," the difficult, real, human issues presented by Gosnell's actions create a real problem for media.  In the board rooms they were probably saying "we really should cover this case so we don't get gigged for ignoring it" while "too much coverage is going to turn viewers off" came out the other side of their mouths.

First, abortion is a hot button political issue and likely always will be.  Pro-choice people have been holding back the line on abortion restrictions since before Roe v. Wade.  Those who identify as "pro-life" at least believe that SCOTUS overstepped their bounds by legalizing abortion.  At most, they would say, any abortion is murder.  I often wonder how many people in this country have actually read one single Supreme Court decision, much less the Roe decision.  But that doesn't change the fact that the clash between the two sides can get uglier than a pig fight during a parade.  Who then, is surprised that this alone is enough to make the media squeamish.

Politics isn't the only reason for their queasiness. There is also the fact that many of Gosnell's victims were low-income women of color.  I would personally think this would make the case more reportable, as it is the type of scandal that can be sensationalized into higher ratings.  But upon further reflection, there are an aweful lot of people in this country who, frankly, just don't care about the poor.  People in poverty only make the news in an "if it bleeds it leads" context.  Rarely does the main stream media cover these cases from beginning to end.  What they tell you is that the crime happened.  They aren't interested in what lead up to the crime or its result. Why should this case be any different, just because it involves multiple victims.  Besides, it might even cause the masses to get all riled up...

The final reason that the Gosnell case hasn't received the coverage it deserves is because, frankly, it's not sexy.  It is, in fact, anti-sexy.  Jodi Arias has a relatively decent looking white girl from every-town America as a defendant.  Her victim, Travis Alexander, was an up-and-coming young man who was butchered in the prime of his life.  Their relationship was rocky.   Bad relationships and crazy exes are something that the average person can relate to.  Added to the fact that Arias seems to enjoy airing all the details of her sexual escapades, and you have the makings of a media darling because death sells, but sex sells better.  Gosnell doesn't appeal to the public's prurient interests.  He is an old man who was doing a job that no one wanted to think about BEFORE he crossed the legal line.  After crossing that line, he became a proverbial boogie-man-in-the-closet.  And real boogie men don't help companies sell yogurt.

Just Keepin it Real.
HKB