The Y108 radio station, which broadcasts into Toronto, Burlington, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford and all through Niagara, has decided to pull some pro-life ads purchased by the Niagara Region Right to Life group. The reason? The station received seven complaints! Seven! The decision was made by the station manager, Suzanne Carpenter.
Don't they realize that this action is a limitation of freedom of speech and positions Y108 as being hostile to any pro-life groups? I guess that makes Y108 offically pro-abortion, to the point of wanting to silence one side of the debate.
I have read the advertisements in question and they are anything but offensive. Here is the text of the four ads:
1) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....and I regret my abortion."
2) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....abortion harms more than just the baby."
3) "When they say that abortion will solve your problem...the truth is that it cost us everything. Our baby, our peace of mind and each other."
4) "When they say that abortion will solve your problems...the truth is that it can cause suicidal thoughts, depression, guilt and often infertility."
Trailer: This message comes to you from Niagara Region Right To Life.
Do you think those are offensive ads? They simply relate negative experiences of people that have had abortions. The only reason why some people complained is because they are staunchly pro-abortion and do not want to allow other views to be expressed, lest society finally wake up and realize that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
Moreover, I would think that in a region as populous as Y108's listening area, 7 complaints should be considered as a drop in the bucket. This is far from a massive outcry against the radio station. I can't believe they are letting 7 radical pro-abortion militants manage their radio station. Where is their backbone?
I hope that this decision will be reversed, otherwise Y108 will likely incur irreparable damage to its reputation as a tolerant and inclusive radio station.
Monday, January 08, 2007
New York Times finally issues a correction
The mighty New York Times has finally succumbed to weeks of pressure from various groups that were demanding that they admit that they made a huge (perhaps deliberate) error in reporting regarding abortion in El Salvador. Read more about their gaffe here.
On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.
The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.
When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.
That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.
Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.
On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.
The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.
When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.
That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.
Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)