Not on the media’s radar, says Ross Douthat. Excerpt:
Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.
But of course millions of Americans — including, yes, millions of American women — do oppose Planned Parenthood. They oppose the 300,000-plus abortions it performs every year (making it the largest abortion provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on abortion.
More:
Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.
Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.
Indeed, that sense of relief was quantifiable: the day after the controversy broke, Komen reported that its daily donations had risen dramatically.
But of course, you wouldn’t know that from most of the media coverage. After all, the people making those donations don’t exist.
Hector 
Angela 
J 
Mary Russell 
Charles Cosimano 
Gretchen 
Dan 
MH - secular misanthropist 
philosopher 
Salamander, you obviously have not been paying attention to this subject. The patent deception you just offered was patiently and thoroughly debunked several posts back, by a woman who has experience making referrals TO Planned Parenthood of women who need mammograms. She said, PP does initial exams, then refers women to laboratories who are equipped to perform the mammogram, and the referral includes payment for the procedure. She added, just try walking into one of these labs without a referral and asking for a free mammogram.
I don’t mind people with something new to say challenging a previous factual assertion. I don’t mind people honestly saying “Well, I don’t care, I still hate Planned Parenthood because…” I do mind people blithely repeating a self-serving statement that has previously been debunked, without making the slightest effort to establish, in the fact of the proferred debunking, why your assertion really is valid after all. Do you have any NEW DATA to provide?
Leo, my dear brother in Christ, if slaves inhabited the bodies of their masters, I would think twice before demanding that they be freed. The first half of an analogy is always easier than the second, in which respect it resembles life, but not of course love. You can illustrate by analogy, but you cannot prove a point thereby. Any cause that cannot establish its own validity on its own merits, without resort to wrapping itself in some once-controversial but now universally admired cause, is unworthy of consideration. That goes for pro-life, PETA, and gay marriage.