“Gosnell is on trial for 7 counts of first-degree murder regarding the deaths of seven babies, and one count of third-degree murder for the death of a female patient. Many conservatives pundits think there should be greater media coverage. Be careful what you wish for.”

–—David Drumm, guest blogger on Jonathan Turley’s “Res Ipsa Loquitur,” arguing that scrutiny of the facts behind the Gosnell late-term abortion murder trial will show that pro-life protestors at Planned Parenthood clinics forced some women to enter Dr. Gosnell’s “house of horrors,” so conservatives should be eager to suppress the ugly story, just as the main stream media has done to avoid sparking an emotional national debate over the realities of abortion.

I’ll put up a more flattering photo, Professor Turley, when you stop letting unethical people write on your blog.

A statement like Drumm’s above is signature significance. I don’t need to read another word to know that this is a commentator driven by politics and tactics rather than principle. Why is someone like this guest blogging on Jonathan Turley’s website? Turley is a legal scholar, an ethics expert, and everything Drumm is clearly not. He does not take knee-jerk ideological positions; his commentary is not partisan, and he is a civil libertarian. Civil libertarians do not endorse media manipulation of the news in the pursuit of partisan agendas, which is exactly what Drumm does here.

“Many conservatives pundits think there should be greater media coverage,” he says. No, an increasing number of pundits and media critics across the political spectrum are finally saying that the non-coverage of the Gosnell trial is a disgrace. Drumm’s subtext is that since the non-coverage protects a liberal sacred cow—unlimited abortion—obviously progressives want to keep the public in the dark. He believes that it is perfectly natural and acceptable for advocates to want to suppress facts and public knowledge in pursuit of their goals, that the ends justify the means. He so believes it, in fact, that he apparently sees nothing remarkable, and certainly nothing wrong, with marginalizing the Gosnell story in the pursuit of progressive goals. Why, of course liberals don’t want the story publicized! Only those who oppose abortion want the public to know about Gosnell! Drumm’s view of the United States is not only that that public opinion is manipulated by the media, but also that this is acceptable to anyone whose favored policy benefits as a result. He not only doesn’t care that the system is unethical; he thinks nobody else should care either.

“Be careful what you wish for” is despicable. Drumm is saying that since the Gosnell story includes elements that could be used to argue against conservative positions, those on the right should want to bury the story and keep it from the public too, just like the unethical national media. Apparently the idea that there are policy-makers, commentators, pundits and partisans who believe in core democratic principles like transparency, truth-telling and disclosure even when they are inconvenient to their own cause is inconceivable to him. Drumm insults the integrity of both sides of the political divide, projecting his own Machiavellian sensibilities on the entire political culture.

Law professor Turley has a well-earned reputation for integrity himself, and he does it no favors by allowing a blog with his name on it to be invaded by guest bloggers who appear to represent exactly the kinds of  “ends justify the means” political philosophy he has always opposed. He does this often: Turley is absent from his blog as often as he is writing on it. If you don’t have time to blog, Jonathan, don’t. Pretending to have a Turley blog that features the sour and corrupt views of a David Drumm is a betrayal of your principles, as well as your readers.

___________________________

Source: Res Ipsa Loquitur