ARTICLES

Delusion of Fairness

WHY THE UNION-TRIBUNE WON'T FIX ABORTION COVERAGE

By Bob McPhail

On Holy Thursday, April 4, the San Diego Union-Tribune published a flattering account of Leslie Sebastian, special projects coordinator for Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties. It was not the first lopsided piece about Planned Parenthood in the U-T. Five years earlier, a salute to Mark Salo, PP's executive director, ran under the headline, "Planned Parenthood is a Personal Philosophy for Director." It asked softball questions like, "Is family planning difficult in Mexico? Is the 'macho' a problem?" and "What made you feel so strongly about reproductive rights?" Salo's self-serving answers went completely unchallenged.

The most recent panegyric ran as the lead story on the front page of the Currents & Arts section beneath the headline, "Planned Parenthood Powerhouse." It was accompanied by a large photo of Sebastian bearing the caption, "Trouble-shooter: When Planned Parenthood has a problem, Leslie Sebastian finds the solution."

"As special-projects coordinator for the local Planned Parenthood, Sebastian is the person most responsible for ending selective harassment of doctors who perform abortions, and for forcing anti-abortion counseling centers to stop passing themselves off as objective family-planning clinics," wrote U-T staff writer Clark Brooks.

Sebastian's superiors and associates praised her as smart, self-starting, hard-working. Her "accomplishments" included repeat lawsuits spun from unique legal theories against opponents of abortion. She drafted the San Diego city ordinances that prohibit pickets in front of abortionists' homes and restrict contact between protesters and abortion clinic clients.

"I think it's wonderful to be pro-life if you believe that and offer your services to families," Sebastian is quoted as saying. "Instead of picketing somebody's house, go volunteer at a day-care center. Harassing a doctor is just mean-spirited." Absent from Brooks' story was an attempt to present views that differ from Sebastian's, not even from those who were the targets of her lawsuits.

But don't bother to complain to U-T editor Karin Winner. Nor to the U-T's ombudsman Gina Lubrano, whose job it is to handle complaints. "I don't speak for the paper," she said. "I shouldn't be quoted on these issues."

"You are going on the premise that anytime we write about someone we are endorsing their ideas, which is not the case," Lubrano told me in the first of several telephone interviews. Lubrano objected to my characterization of Brooks' story as 'a puff piece.' "It was not a puff piece," she said. "The Union-Tribune does not publish 'puff pieces.' There is a news tag to this story."

Lubrano said I would have to talk to U-T editor Karin Winner if I wanted an explanation of what the policy of the newspaper is regarding abortion coverage. Repeated attempts over several days to reach Winner by telephone were unsuccessful. Winner's secretary said Winner was too busy to talk to me. "She's very difficult to get a hold of," said Lubrano when apprised of the difficulty I was having reaching Winner.

The Sebastian piece provoked several critical letters to the editor, complaints Lubrano said she did not see because she was away on Easter vacation. "Does the Union-Tribune plan to give fair, equal coverage to an equally-qualified pro-lifer?" asked a letter from Cash and Erica Sanchez of San Diego. Also writing was Connie Youngkin, pro-life activist from Poway, who was one of the subjects of a Sebastian lawsuit mentioned in Brooks' story. "Your puff piece on Ms. Sebastian and Mr. James McElroy was very biased," wrote Youngkin. "The reporter who did this story also interviewed me, a pro-life sidewalk counselor. I have had dealings with attorney McElroy and his Planned Parenthood gang. This reporter failed to include the times his pro-abortion heroes harass, threaten and lie about the pro-life community."

Brooks confirmed that he had spoken extensively with Youngkin. The only quote he used from that interview was one in which Youngkin was explaining why she settled a lawsuit out of court. "They wanted to take all my property," Youngkin is quoted as saying. "My husband freaked out." Brooks defended his decision to downplay Youngkin's comments. "Are you a reporter?" he asked. "You don't put everything that people say in a story. I wasn't doing a story on Connie Youngkin. I was doing a story on Leslie Sebastian. The other things she [Youngkin] said didn't fit in."

Brooks said he began researching Sebastian after his editor Suzanne Choney showed him an article about Sebastian in George, a new national political magazine published by John F. Kennedy, Jr. He said he ran a computer search on Sebastian and discovered that the New York Times had also written about her. "So we were already behind the curve on this story to begin with," he said.

Brooks said he found Youngkin a difficult interview because he could not make sense out of much of what she was saying. For example, he noted, he had trouble with Youngkin's description of herself as "a pro-life sidewalk counselor."

"What kind of counseling is that?" he asked. "If I were having marital problems, I wouldn't expect someone to come up to me on the sidewalk and offer counseling." Brooks said he found Sebastian more reasonable and tolerant of others. "Here's a person, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her, who has accomplished quite a lot," he said. "She doesn't have the background to do the things she's doing, but she's done them.... She said abortion opponents have that right," explained Brooks. "She just believes you cannot take your views and force them on somebody else."

When asked whether the U-T would run a similar story about a pro-life hero, Lubrano said it depends entirely on the judgment of U-T editors and writers. "I'm sure they would if there was an aspect of it in the news," said Lubrano.

On May 14, 1989, the U-T did run a feature story about Joan Patton of La Jolla. Written by staff writer John Gaines, the story described Patton's activities against abortion and sex education in public schools. But it was not the treatment Brooks gave to Sebastian. Consider this passage: "Her critics -- those on the other side of the debate -- say Patton is notorious for spreading misinformation, seeing conspiracies that are not there, or taking arguments out of context, all to inflame an already emotional issue." Or this hint that Patton may be a hypocrite: "She also has at least some personal experience with one of her premier political issues. One of her daughters, then in her early 20s, became pregnant while single." And, unlike the "Planned Parenthood Powerhouse" headline on the Sebastian story, the U-T's piece on Patton acknowledged an opposing view: "Health Debate Anything But Clinical; Emotions Inflamed as Bitter Battle Waged."

The same kind of bias showed up in the U-T's coverage of the 1990 Republican primary for state assembly in San Diego's 76th Assembly District. In that race, Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter was being challenged by Youngkin. A May 9, 1990, profile of Hunter by political writer Dana Wilkie was headlined, "New in Office, Hunter is Off and Running." The 1157-word story began on Page B-1, and was accompanied by a photo of Hunter with the caption, "Tricia Hunter, kneeling, visits pupils in Lakeside with Principal Linda Colbert."

Hunter was portrayed as a busy legislator scurrying from constituent to constituent. She is described as "open," "extremely open," and "extremely accessible." Wilkie told U-T readers that Hunter had the support of "abortion-rights advocates," noting that Hunter had met with Norma Clevenger, executive director of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, "at least eight times to discuss state funds for family planning, abortion rights and perinatal care." Clevenger praised Hunter in the article, as did Linda Joplin, state coordinator for the National Organization for Women.

By contrast, Wilkie's March 19, 1990, profile of Youngkin was nearly half as long (623 words), began on Page B-3, and ran with the following headline: "Youngkin Bids to Go From Lawbreaker to Lawmaker." Youngkin merited only a mug shot with the caption, "Connie Youngkin -- Seeking Assembly Seat." The focus of Wilkie's coverage of Youngkin was on whether the candidate was being inconsistent when she said, if elected, she would end her civil disobedience by ending her participation in abortion-clinic blockades.

Wilkie described Youngkin as "a twice-convicted abortion clinic blockader who is prepared to sit in jail while running an Assembly campaign, but not while running an Assembly office." Unlike the profile of Hunter, there was no praise for Youngkin from any of her supporters. Instead Wilkie gave Hunter a chance to attack Youngkin. "I personally don't care what your cause is," Wilkie quoted Hunter as saying. "Breaking the law is breaking the law."

Staffers at the U-T interviewed for this story, while insisting that reporters and editors try to be fair, say there are very few pro-lifers at the U-T. When asked, none could identify a single pro-life colleague. "There are some on the copy desk, I think," said one reporter. "Most of the people here have more of a feminist slant."

Another reporter said U-T policy regarding abortion coverage was formalized in the early 1990s, when pro-lifers were being sent to jail and police were using "pain compliance" as they made arrests. The newspaper, the reporter said, was deluged with complaints. "We were getting hit on all sides," the reporter said. Assistant managing editor Doug Hope issued a one-page memo outlining how abortion was to be handled. The reporter said Hope relied heavily on the fact that abortion was legal. That memo later was edited down to the single paragraph that now appears in the U-T stylebook. Under the entry 'Abortion' in the stylebook, writers for the paper are told to "...use neutral terms. Preferred: Abortion opponents, opponents of abortion, abortion foes on the one side. On the other side: abortion-rights advocates, supporters of legal abortion and the like. Except in directly quoted matter, no 'pro-life' and no 'pro-choice.' The term 'pro-abortion' is a misleading simplification."

"The language you decide to use defines your coverage," said the reporter, who, despite being sympathetic to the pro-choice side, expressed concern over how the U-T treats the pro-life side. "Very rarely does the Union-Tribune make these kinds of decisions," said the reporter. "We usually allow people to define themselves. We very rarely arbitrarily define people in this fashion. This (the abortion policy) is a rare exception."

Another U-T staffer explained that the problem with the newspaper's coverage of abortion stems from the mindset of the newsroom, not from any deliberate attempt to be unfair. Instead, said the staffer, his colleagues suffer from a kind of delusion. They really believe they are being fair because of the way they understand the world. "There is no agenda here," said the staffer. "[But] this newsroom is overwhelmingly liberal. They report the news the way they see it."

Todd Merriman, the U-T's senior editor for news, declined to comment on the Sebastian piece. "It was not in one of the sections that I edit," he said. "I'm not going to get into an issue that I'm not familiar with." As far as the news pages, Merriman said, the U-T generally follows the lead of the Associated Press.

For example, when asked why the U-T refused to use the term "partial-birth abortion" except as a description used by opponents of the procedure, Merriman said: "I don't know if there is a specific policy on the use of that term. Generally, we follow the AP on that kind of thing. That's probably what you see there.

"Our copy desk is pretty representative of the general public," he said. "We have people of all persuasions. Copy editors will often suggest that some terms are loaded. It isn't as if we have a filter or a political test. Is there conscious or unconscious bias? That's always a fair question to ask. I don't think we, or anyone, does a perfect job."