This is Why Newspapers Are Dying

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments about using abortion as population control raised a lot of eyebrows in the blogosphere. Over 9,236 to be precise, according to Google blog search.

Huge sites too like Hot Air featured the story prominently. Even Drudge ran with the story yesterday.

But as of this morning the mainstream media has completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations "we don't want to have too many of." Not one.

What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media's complete silence on this issue? They don't see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context? What?!

As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they're wondering "why?" This is why.

I must say kudos to the New York Times for reporting the comment in the first place but they obviously didn't see how explosive the quote was because 1) there was no follow up to her answer and 2) the quote was buried in the story.

The Times didn't bother to ask her who the populations were that "we" didn't want too many of or even who the "we" consisted of. In fact, nobody has.


  1. I know, Matt. That's why we quit subscribing to our local paper years ago. Just really surprised its taken this long for them to go belly up...guess our tax dollars must be bailing them out too!

  2. Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaurs. And the sooner the better.

    I realize that people who line their bird cages with the catch-all grey blanket might be at a loss for an easy replacement. (There is something very satisfying about putting the photos of certain politicians' faces in the way of feces.) And, fish and chip shops will have to rethink their use of a non-edible wrap in which they tuck that one-piece-cod-and-chips meal.

    I advocate a return to radio, internet or broadcast. Yep, it's old fashioned, but it leaves more to the imagination than the "we-do-it-all-for-you" visual media.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Gee Matthew. If you didn't want the answer, then don't ask the question. It is the truth.

  5. And if you either a) don't believe me or b) are whining that the post sounded too "anti-semitic" or c) are just to afraid to aknowledge this reality, take a look

    1. Here
    3. and Here

    Then ask yourself why the Boston Globe or any other media ever covered these stories.

  6. Anonymous,
    Excuse you. The CMR link is not about what you're trying to make it about. It is, however, about how newpapers often do not accurately portray news, and that their error is an unjustice. You seem to be suggesting that the reason that no one is publishing stories is because of their religious view point, but I think that the CMR post is suggesting that papers aren't sharing the news because their world view is is yours if you believe that the religion of a writer keeps him from telling the truth about the news.

  7. "What are we to make of the media's complete silence on this issue?"

    What about this: they recognize she didn't advocate eugenics, but only reported that the GOP SCOTUS ruled Roe v Wade with that sort of thinking under their hats?

    What are we to make this story originated in the NY Times, without which bloggers would not have had an interview text to manipulate.

    Reading comprehension, people. Next story, please.


Post a Comment