For BCM110 the issue I have chosen to follow through the channels of the media is “post-birth abortion”. Of course this is a sensitive, moral and ethical issue that ties heavily with religion but the stark contrast of how it is represented in varying platforms has caught and managed to sustain my attention (which is a difficult task). Newspaper articles, television programs, blogs, tweets, journal articles, magazine articles, the list of my sources goes on and on with sometime slight, sometime significantly distinctive view points. In my blog posts relating to this topic I will attempt (and succeed) to unravel and highlight to what extend the media accurately portrays the facts and ideologies surrounding post-birth abortion and the thoughts and feelings of the general public in response to the considerable media attention.
Experts in the field (according to the Washington post, The daily telegraph, The journal of medical ethics) are arguing for and advocating post-birth abortions to the outrage and disbelief of the broader public, most notably with a headline from the Journal of medical ethics read; “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” This article was ill received by readers, causing fury and even death threats (irony?) resulting in heavy debates on blogs, twitter and even YouTube videos. However the authors, Giubilini and Minerva have issued the explanation that they intended the article to be “read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments.”
This intense response to stories in the media raises the question; just how involved are the media when it comes to presenting and fuelling disputes over political, economical, environmental, and health issues? This is what I hope to discover over the course of this subject.