I'm beginning to see a pattern here....

Photos of Abu Ghraib torture -- yes, can't get enough. Photos of our own 9/11 victims -- no, too upsetting. Photos of people killed by roadside bombs in Iraq -- yes, can't get enough. Photos of bland cartoons -- no, too "disrespectful." Photos of fetal ultrasounds -- yes, sweet. No, wait, wait. It should be "yes," but it turns out the answer is "no." According to at least one newspaper asked to run these pro-life ads with ultrasound pictures, the pictures were simply too graphic to be tolerable for the reading public. So, the pattern is complete. Newspapers are not about passing on newsworthy information or serving as a forum for free speech. They're about serving an agenda that is anti-War and pro-Choice. Why am I not surprised? (Okay, I'm not really surprised. This feigned surprise is my version of sarcasm. It just doesn't translate well to print.) Hat tip: Suitable for Mixed Company. Talking to Technorati: Media, Pro-Life, anti-War