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?