Leaked emails from National Public Radio (NPR) reveal the taxpayer-funded group running interference for the abortion industry by banning the term “abortionist” and “abortion doctor” to describe the murderous Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist currently serving a life sentence for three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.
When an executive producer for the new film “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” reached out to NPR to purchase a sponsorship for the interview show “Fresh Air,” he was told he could not use the term “abortionist” to describe Gosnell in the ad, though he could use the term “doctor,” emails obtained by The Daily Beast indicate:
Sullivan, who was prepared to spend as much as six figures, crafted his ad copy to answer the question you’re probably asking: Who is Gosnell? The proposed ad was as follows, “Support for this NPR program comes from the film Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. The film is the true story of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. A story the mainstream media tried to cover up because it reveals the truth about abortion.”
No dice. According to e-mails provided to The Daily Beast, NPR’s representative ran it up the legal flagpole and came back with a disappointing answer. In addition to other minor tweaks to the wording, their response stated, “The word ‘abortionist’ will also need to be changed to the neutral word ‘doctor.'”
But using the ambiguous term “doctor” widely misdirects from the function of the film, as NPR surely understands. So Sullivan pushed back, asking if he could use the much more accurate term “abortion doctor.”
NPR, amazingly, said no.
The modified ad, as provided by NPR Senior Director of Media Relations Isabel Lara, would say: “Hat Tip Distribution, with the film ‘Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer,’ based on the true story of Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell. Out Friday.”
Not even a mention of abortion.
“Our movie isn’t about a podiatrist or a cardiologist or a proctologist,” argued “Gosnell” producer Phelim McAleer. “It’s specifically about a doctor who performs abortions.”
“Sponsor credits that run on NPR are required to be value neutral to comply with FCC requirements and to avoid suggesting bias in NPR’s journalism,” Lara reasoned to The Daily Beast.
This is nonsense. NPR has used the term “abortion doctor” repeatedly in the past when reporting on the murder of an “abortion doctor.” And when the Gosnell story first hit the uninterested media, a buried headline with the term “abortion doctor” describing Gosnell sneaked by the media group.
So why can’t Gosnell, an abortionist, be described as an abortionist? The answer is obvious: to protect the abortion industry. Abortion can in no way be associated with “Gosnell” the movie — a brutally honest uncovering of abortionist Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.” This would expose to the world what abortion and late-term abortion actually is.
As noted by The Daily Beast, the efforts to silence or obfuscate the premise of “Gosnell” the film has been heavy- handed. “Before trying to market the movie, the filmmakers encountered similar obstacles preventing them from crowdfunding via Kickstarter. Then, they had a hard time finding a distributor. And long before a film existed, the actual crime itself, the event on which the film is based, was largely under-covered,” the outlet reports.
When the Gosnell story broke in 2013, the media were essentially nowhere to be found. Even liberal pundit Kirsten Powers admitted this much in a USA Today column: “Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations? It’s not your fault,” she wrote. “Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page.”
“Gosnell” producer Ann McElhinney noted that NPR receives taxpayer funds and thus has “a duty to push aside their own prejudices and opinions and apply fair and consistent standards and allow paid advertising even if the ads are promoting something they would rather remain hidden from their listeners.”
“Perhaps Congress should look into the matter. If they’re so well-funded that they’re turning away advertisers like us, maybe they don’t need government subsidies anymore,” said McAleer.
To find out more about the film, click here.