Aborted baby parts for sale: Did journalists drag their feet on Planned Parenthood story?

By now, you've seen THE VIDEO.

It's been the talk of social media, particularly among pro-life advocates, for a full day now.

Given the subject matter, it's no surprise that GetReligionista emeritus Mollie Hemingway — now a senior editor with The Federalisthas been all over the issue:

Six hours after the video began making waves, Mollie wrote at The Federalist:

This is a story that requires thoughtful and substantive coverage. That the media are beginning by ignoring it is not a good sign that they have learned a single lesson from crapping the bed with their coverage of the monstrous abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell.

But can "thoughtful and substantive coverage" be produced immediately? While understanding Mollie's frustration, I sympathize, too, with the perspective of another former GetReligionista: Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

On Twitter, Sarah made the case that, hey, real reporting takes a little time:

Wait a minute! Did Sarah just say that "blogs have it easy?" What!? (Seriously, I get what she's saying and, for the most part, agree.)

As the night progressed, the story did make its way to major mainstream media outlets:

Of course, the coverage itself did not please everyone:

Meanwhile, Dawn Eden, another former GetReligionista, raised a compelling question on the video itself. Her basic point, as I understand it: Does the end justify the means?:

I realize I haven't really critiqued the media coverage itself with this post. My inability to offer a quick, easy opinion probably makes me a bad blogger (right, Sarah?). But as much as I hate to admit it, I'm still trying to understand the complexities and separate the fact from fiction — the reality from spin — in this situation.

Trust that we at GetReligion are following the coverage and the ongoing debate over the media's role.

Stay tuned for more analysis. You out there, tmatt?

Please respect our Commenting Policy