Abortion Ban? What Abortion Ban?

The consistently excellent Editor & Publisher brings word today that the Argus Leader – the largest paper in South Dakota – has decided not to editorialize on the state's abortion ban. Why? Because the issue is too emotional.

"Abortion is different from other issues," editorial page editor Chuck Baldwin told E&P. "It is a hot-button issue at the core of everyone's soul. It will not change no matter what."

He also said that, were the paper to run such an editorial, "People would think our coverage is tainted, and not just on abortion but on everything."

In a column on Sunday, Argus Leader Editor Randall Beck echoed Baldwin's sentiment, writing, "What could we say..... that would contribute to public understanding of this troubling issue - arguably the most divisive of our time?" He added: "In the emotional and escalating debate over abortion, Americans find themselves bound to faith and conviction, a deeply felt sense of what is right. No editorial, no matter how deftly written, will change that."

It may be true that when it comes to the fundamental question of whether or not abortion is morally right, Americans are steadfastly stuck in their ways, though I'm not convinced that peoples' opinions on any issue are so intractable that it's not worth even expressing an opinion. But even if one accepts the notion that you're not going to change any minds on abortion, there is plenty of fodder for an editorial here. This is one of the biggest stories to come out of the state in recent memory, and it isn't just about whether abortion is good or bad.

The legislation signed by Gov. Mike Rounds bans abortions in the state in all cases except when a woman's life is in danger, which means that women who are raped, for example, do not have an exception. Do Baldwin and Beck really believe people have such steadfast opinions that there's no point in addressing the morally vexing questions around which exceptions should be in place? And what about the fact that the legislation was seemingly designed to end up before the Supreme Court in order to challenge Roe vs. Wade? The Argus Leader has no opinion on whether this is the right legislation for such a tactic – or if such a tactic is appropriate at all?

Coming on the heels of the decision by many media outlets (including CBS News) not to run the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, the Argus Leader's pusillanimous refusal to editorialize suggest that this remains a relatively wimpy era of journalism. Much has been made of the fact that reporters now seem more willing to stubbornly question politicians and spokespeople. This is undoubtedly a good thing. But it means little when one considers the fact that many news organizations, particularly newspapers, are terrified of hemorrhaging customers in an age of emerging technologies and a constant barrage of media criticism.

If you read between the lines of the Argus Leader's argument, the thinking of the editors seems pretty clear: Taking a bold stand, they believe, is a bad business decision, one that will drive readers away from the paper. They might be right. But their justifications ring false, since they insist on pretending that a bottom-line decision can be defended from a journalistic perspective. Journalists, now that the environment has become favorable for it, may now be making slightly more noise in public, but in the end, its hard to look at decisions like this and not conclude that the days when news outlets made bold decisions – even if it meant risking the bottom line – seem further away than ever.