Topic: Media Research Center
Melissa Mullins devotes a Jan. 21 MRC NewsBusters post to a screed against Teen Vogue for daring to write about Planned Parenthood's response to a anti-abortion group's secretly recorded videos. She bravely clings to her anti-abortion talking points, even in the face of reality. For instance, she writes in one of the "bias" points against the Teen Vogue article:
Bias #2: Calling the people behind the videos of conducting a “malicious smear campaign.” That in itself is incredibly subjective, but the truth is not.
Bias #3: Claiming the videos were “heavily edited in an effort to claim employees of Planned Parenthood sold “baby parts” for profit.” Were the videos edited? Yes – for brevity…however, the complete and unedited videos are online, stating the same as the shorter videos. Besides, you can’t put words into someone’s mouth when it’s on camera. Hey Teen Vogue – have you seen the videos? Or are you claiming ignorance like the Democrats who refused to watch the videos?
In fact, it's been amply documented that the edited videos do not accurately reflect the reality that's contained in the "complete and unedited" versions. In other words, they're not "the truth" at all.
Mullins then wrote:
Bias #6: Blaming an attack on Planned Parenthood that killed three people as a "devastating result" of these videos. This is absurd. It’s almost the same as saying the Matrix movies caused the Columbine school massacre.
Given that the shooter in the Planned Parenthood killings, Robert Dear, reportedly talked of "baby parts" upon his arrest -- a phrase that has been a key component of the MRC's promotion of the Center for Medical Progress' secretly recorded anti-abortion videos -- it's pretty safe to assume that the videos played some role in inspiring the shooting.
We're not aware that Mullins has criticized her publisher for repeatedly blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center for a gunman's attack on the Family Reserach Council headquarters despite no evidence the gunman had any contact with the SPLC beyond looking at its website (which did not exhort anyone to violence).
Mullins concludes by ranting that "a magazine which targets teenaged girls is spoon-feeding them biased garbage such as this." So what's Mullins' excuse for her peddling of biased garbage?