Two Sides Journalism.

At Big Journalism (ultra-conservative Andrew Breitbart's site) Ken Blackwell takes NPR to task for not presenting the "pro-life" side of the abortion debate strongly enough in their reporting. A new policy at NPR requires reporters and journalists to use the descriptors abortion rights advocates and abortion rights opponents. He writes that NPR's bias is well known and explains that this is a scandal because NPR is publicly funded (annually only about 5.8% comes from federal, state or local governments).

Then Blackwell, known for his radically conservative views, takes on the New York Times and from there on his article moves from blatant inaccuracy to odd Red Scare paranoia. Here's how he ties his idea of freedom to abortion:

Pro-lifers alone are denied the right to be called what we call ourselves. Maybe it’s because liberal scribes see the power in the pro-life designation. Maybe it’s because they know that the truth can make people free.

Blackwell sees the "pro-life" mantle as encompassing the entire platform. But he fails to understand that abortion rights advocates also care about life, they just define it differently. NPR's new policy forces "pro-life" activists to delineate and clarify their positions on things instead of clinging to "culture of death" nomenclature that misrepresents the debate.

Pro-lifers are not just against liberalized abortion. We object to elder-killing—what they call euphemistically, physician-assisted suicide. We protest cloning humans. So, according to Gallup, do 88% of Americans. We are against killing unborn embryonic humans to obtain their stem cells.

All the communist stuff, pleading for two sides in the debate, chastising media outlets is really just "pro-life" individuals getting political -- as they have for the past 40 years -- and skewing freedom to mean what they intend it to mean: freedom for themselves and their ideas as enforced by government legislature.

Good reporting should have a bias; for the truth. If Blackwell and "pro-life" advocates want to cling to an ideology that harms women and families -- and deny the statistics show so as well as ignoring an evolving, changing society and medical industry -- so be it. But they can't expect the rest of us to ignore the fact that the Cold War is long over, women and elders have bodily rights, ideas of staunch (and destructive) nationalism have been debunked, and the church or religious ideas cannot be used to govern the rights of a nation.

NWO-ers Love Them Some Wesley J. Smith.

The New World Order folks love Wesley J. Smith because he confirms their conspiratorial fears about democrats, liberals, and progressives working within a secret cabal with communists, socialists, and the "culture of death" to hunt down and kill every last one of them (after they've taken their guns).

TruthSeeker24's anti-NWO Corner reprints Smith's recent "be very afraid" column about the Connecticut court case meant to determine the constitutionality of aid in dying in that state.

And take, for instance, WJS's post from yesterday about those dastardly experts:

If you want to get to the root of just about every problem we face in America today, just look to the “experts,” whose advice did much to get us here. Despite this, our bad case of “expertitis” shows no signs of abating. How else explain the drive to take decision making power on some of the most important issues of our day and turn it over to unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic boards of “experts?”

Yup. Rather have the "Joe Plumbers" of the world making decisions about, say, climate change or financial market regulation.... (Come to think of it, maybe WJS does have a point.)