H o m e |
ANTI-ABORTION ADVERTISEMENT OFFENDS READERS In January 1998 Cynthia Gorney of The Washington Post published her "Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars" at Simon and Schuster. This fast-moving narrative is set in St. Louis from 1968 to 1993, and depicts the people and struggles of pro-Choice and pro-Life movements alike. Judy Widdicombe, of Reproductive Health Services, and Sam Lee, of pro-Llfe civil disobedience, are the featured figures. Abortion is an issue for college students. Other readers besides me might regret the state of affairs described to me by The Current's editor: college journalism might more readily distribute pro-life propaganda as "advertising," but not discuss abortion on its op-ed page. ("Articles of Faith" narrates the discovery of sensational pictures as a propaganda device in the movement.) For those readers, "Articles of Faith" is available at Left Bank Books and elsewhere. Read it in time for the Pope to arrive in St. Louis. Read it in time for the dedication of RHS's new clinic in the Central West End.
-Nanora Sweet I would like to first state that I have nothing against The Current and support its mission and coverage of the UM-St. Louis campus. However, I feel I must voice my concern to the anti-abortion (I will not justify it by calling it pro-life) literature inserted in every copy of The Current the week of April 20. I do not expect The Current to support any agenda and would find any propaganda just as morally reprehensible. When one picks up a copy of the paper, one expects news, columns and opinions, but does not expect to be bombarded with right-wing hype. Indeed one would hope that a paper of any merit would place itself above supporting in any way something that really amounts to the antithesis of journalism. Yes, I understand that they probably paid you to place the inserts. But journalism is not only about money. You have a choice whether or not to accept them as a potential advertiser. That is really what this is all about. Choice. My right to choose is guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade, and if someone wishes to overturn this then they need to seek the proper legal channels and not use under-handed, sensationalistic scare tactics to prove a point. I am ashamed that The Current let its desire for advertising dollars come before its journalistic integrity. We, your readers, should come first. You owe it to us to print the truth and to associate yourself only with other publications that possess the same goals as you do.
-Bethany Cunningham Ladies and Gentlemen, from the people who brought you Juan Torquemada and his Spanish Inquisition, we have the lovely little insert from The Current last week. In case you don't remember, it was that lovely piece of anti-abortion reactionary propaganda bullshit with the picture of the presumably un-aborted fetus on the cover. Don't get me wrong, I am 100 percent pro-freedom of speech, but this entirely opinion-driven piece of crap took my breath away with its self-righteous tone. Take, for example, the pseudo-scientific facts offered by the propagandists as truth. Unsubstantiated claims offered by so-called "experts" about the horrors of abortion are inserted between every other story about a raped woman who decided not to abort because "it's murder!" The use of loaded phrases such as "the choice is...between a dead baby and a *live baby" also pepper the paper. Before the CCC and the Newmans come at me heaving Bibles, let me say that my soul doesn't need saving. I've found my path, and I'm happy on it. If you don't believe in abortion, if you think abortion is wrong, don't have one. It's as simple as that. Don't campaign to have other people's rights infringed just because you disagree. And shame on The Current for trashing an otherwise excellent paper to be a propaganda vehicle, just because someone paid them. Some things are more important than money.
-Stephanie Crawford I was appalled to find anti-choice literature within The Current last week. I enjoy browsing through your advertising, but this was not advertising. It was a political manipulation of a supposedly unbiased publication. I understand the need for advertising, but this is not advertising - nothing is being sold, AND IT WAS PURPOSEFULLY MADE TO LOOK LIKE A NEWS ARTICLE. This is the lowest ploy to influence people. We cannot let money turn your head away from the obvious conflict of interest that the newspaper has incurred. Are you going to give equal time and an equal spread for the pro-choice campaign? You should. Please assure me and all UM-St. Louis students that you did not sell us out for a few bucks.
-Brenda Guynes |