An opinion piece written by an author associated with radical pro-abortion left wing groups and published by Newsweek is more of the same when it comes to biased media outlets which ignore facts regarding the social media censorship of conservatives and pro-life groups. The piece’s author, Sharon Kann, describes her position as the “abortion rights and reproductive health program director at Media Matters.” Kann attempts to debunk Live Action president Lila Rose’s claims that the pro-life organization has been suppressed and censored — but she does so without offering proof of her assertions. Kann fails to mention even one document or e-mail exchange between Live Action and various members of Big Tech to prove her case. She also fails to examine the ongoing advertising freedom given to pro-abortion groups and Planned Parenthood on Twitter, while Live Action is still banned, after four years, from advertising on the platform.

To find these facts would have taken little effort. But finding facts wasn’t what Kann set out to do.

Kann — who regularly refers to pro-lifers as “anti-choice” on her (non-censored) social media accounts — began her claims by writing, “Earlier this month, at an event lauded by the Trump administration as a “social media summit,” a group of right-wing media firebrands and conspiracy theorists gathered at the White House to air their grievances. Chief among them: alleged censorship of conservative views by tech giants, most notably Facebook and Twitter.” 

Kann quickly attacked, claiming Live Action has “weaponized misinformation about abortion” and promoted “inaccurate and sensationalized claims about abortion later in pregnancy and nonexistent links between abortion and breast cancer.” It’s easy enough on social media to smear an organization without offering any proof. But this is Newsweek we’re talking about, which is supposed to have some form of journalistic standards beyond baseless and nonspecific accusations. Kann failed to point out even a single instance of a factual inaccuracy from Live Action. Instead, she linked to pro-abortion outlets like Vice as her “proof,”overlooking where Vice admitted that, in the case of Pinterest’s ban of Live Action, Pinterest “did not elaborate on the specific posts that got Live Action banned, and wouldn’t say the types of health misinformation that Live Action was posting.”

Lila Rose Tweet on Pinterest blocking Live Action

Kann continued:

Such claims of rampant anti-conservative censorship may animate supporters and drive fundraising campaigns. But the facts and hard evidence consistently tell a different story: These allegations are as inaccurate as they are self-serving.

To which “facts and hard evidence” would Kann be referring? We have no idea, because she failed to list any such facts or hard evidence. Instead, she pointed to a series of Media Matters studies (published in 2018 and repeated in 2019) which she claimed “conclusively debunked” the idea of censorship of conservative groups. The linked pages didn’t mention Live Action or Lila Rose. Kann then pointed to another Media Matters study of “abortion-related coverage on Facebook” which simply revealed that Live Action was a prominent presence on the social media site. Again, Kann failed to address any of Live Action’s censorship claims, previously summarized by Live Action News as follows:

• Twitter: Blocking Live Action and Lila Rose from advertising

• Facebook: Hiding and removing Live Action’s content, and holding ads indefinitely for “review”

• Pinterest: Placed Live Action on “porn block” list, labeling pro-life content as “misinformation”

• Youtube: Blocking, burying, and labeling pro-life videos as “inappropriate content”; “approving” ads but never allowing them to run

Kann failed to note that while Live Action has been prohibited from advertising on Twitter, the platform permits ads from:

• Radical pro-abortion group ReproAction.

• Advocates like Alyssa Milano.

• Planned Parenthood and their political arm PPAction.

Media Matters and its mouthpieces have motivation to mislead the facts outlined by pro-life groups. After all, as Live Action News previously laid out in detail, Media Matters is doing the bidding of its deep pocket donor George Soros, who helps to fund population control worldwide.

Soros’ Open Society Foundation has funded pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood for years, as Live Action News detailed here. In addition, Soros-funded media outlets like National Public Radio (NPR) also chose to ignore Live Action’s evidence of suppression and censorship.

Nothing revealing Kann’s strong pro-abortion connections was pointed out by Newsweek. But it’s easy to discover. In February, for example, Kann tweeted in part, “Together with @prhdocs we put together this list of anti-abortion myths that media & fact checkers should be prepared to debunk….”

The twitter handle @Prhdocs stands for Physicians for Reproductive Health. As Live Action News has previously documented, PRH’s stated mission includes advocating for abortion and abortion providers. PRH’s current president, Jodi Magee, was previously associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, and Connecticut NARAL.

PRH is also funded by original investors of the abortion pill manufacturer, Danco — namely, the Packard Foundation (a foundation associated with billionaire abortion funder Warren Buffett) and of course, the previously mentioned Soros-funded Open Society Foundations.

On her Twitter page, Kann advocates for Planned Parenthood, and on her LinkedIn page Kann lists volunteer work with Planned Parenthood as well as the Emma Goldman abortion facility. Clearly, Kann’s pro-abortion bent is stronger than most.

The media frequently chooses to ignore factual evidence presented by pro-life groups, while legitimizing less than factual abortion apologists such as Kann and Media Matters. In the words of former Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter, “Journalists are disproportionately liberal on this issue. So they’re more likely to rely on… the information that they get from the pro-choice side.”

If Newsweek wants to maintain an honest reputation, the media giant should invite the pro-life side to present its facts. Somehow I doubt this will happen.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

An opinion piece written by an author associated with radical pro-abortion left wing groups and published by Newsweek is more of the same when it comes to biased media outlets which ignore facts regarding the social media censorship of conservatives and pro-life groups. The piece’s author, Sharon Kann, describes her position as the “abortion rights and reproductive health program director at Media Matters.” Kann attempts to debunk Live Action president Lila Rose’s claims that the pro-life organization has been suppressed and censored — but she does so without offering proof of her assertions. Kann fails to mention even one document or e-mail exchange between Live Action and various members of Big Tech to prove her case. She also fails to examine the ongoing advertising freedom given to pro-abortion groups and Planned Parenthood on Twitter, while Live Action is still banned, after four years, from advertising on the platform.

To find these facts would have taken little effort. But finding facts wasn’t what Kann set out to do.

Kann — who regularly refers to pro-lifers as “anti-choice” on her (non-censored) social media accounts — began her claims by writing, “Earlier this month, at an event lauded by the Trump administration as a “social media summit,” a group of right-wing media firebrands and conspiracy theorists gathered at the White House to air their grievances. Chief among them: alleged censorship of conservative views by tech giants, most notably Facebook and Twitter.” 

Kann quickly attacked, claiming Live Action has “weaponized misinformation about abortion” and promoted “inaccurate and sensationalized claims about abortion later in pregnancy and nonexistent links between abortion and breast cancer.” It’s easy enough on social media to smear an organization without offering any proof. But this is Newsweek we’re talking about, which is supposed to have some form of journalistic standards beyond baseless and nonspecific accusations. Kann failed to point out even a single instance of a factual inaccuracy from Live Action. Instead, she linked to pro-abortion outlets like Vice as her “proof,”overlooking where Vice admitted that, in the case of Pinterest’s ban of Live Action, Pinterest “did not elaborate on the specific posts that got Live Action banned, and wouldn’t say the types of health misinformation that Live Action was posting.”

Lila Rose Tweet on Pinterest blocking Live Action

Kann continued:

Such claims of rampant anti-conservative censorship may animate supporters and drive fundraising campaigns. But the facts and hard evidence consistently tell a different story: These allegations are as inaccurate as they are self-serving.

To which “facts and hard evidence” would Kann be referring? We have no idea, because she failed to list any such facts or hard evidence. Instead, she pointed to a series of Media Matters studies (published in 2018 and repeated in 2019) which she claimed “conclusively debunked” the idea of censorship of conservative groups. The linked pages didn’t mention Live Action or Lila Rose. Kann then pointed to another Media Matters study of “abortion-related coverage on Facebook” which simply revealed that Live Action was a prominent presence on the social media site. Again, Kann failed to address any of Live Action’s censorship claims, previously summarized by Live Action News as follows:

• Twitter: Blocking Live Action and Lila Rose from advertising

• Facebook: Hiding and removing Live Action’s content, and holding ads indefinitely for “review”

• Pinterest: Placed Live Action on “porn block” list, labeling pro-life content as “misinformation”

• Youtube: Blocking, burying, and labeling pro-life videos as “inappropriate content”; “approving” ads but never allowing them to run

Kann failed to note that while Live Action has been prohibited from advertising on Twitter, the platform permits ads from:

• Radical pro-abortion group ReproAction.

• Advocates like Alyssa Milano.

• Planned Parenthood and their political arm PPAction.

Media Matters and its mouthpieces have motivation to mislead the facts outlined by pro-life groups. After all, as Live Action News previously laid out in detail, Media Matters is doing the bidding of its deep pocket donor George Soros, who helps to fund population control worldwide.

Soros’ Open Society Foundation has funded pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood for years, as Live Action News detailed here. In addition, Soros-funded media outlets like National Public Radio (NPR) also chose to ignore Live Action’s evidence of suppression and censorship.

Nothing revealing Kann’s strong pro-abortion connections was pointed out by Newsweek. But it’s easy to discover. In February, for example, Kann tweeted in part, “Together with @prhdocs we put together this list of anti-abortion myths that media & fact checkers should be prepared to debunk….”

The twitter handle @Prhdocs stands for Physicians for Reproductive Health. As Live Action News has previously documented, PRH’s stated mission includes advocating for abortion and abortion providers. PRH’s current president, Jodi Magee, was previously associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, and Connecticut NARAL.

PRH is also funded by original investors of the abortion pill manufacturer, Danco — namely, the Packard Foundation (a foundation associated with billionaire abortion funder Warren Buffett) and of course, the previously mentioned Soros-funded Open Society Foundations.

On her Twitter page, Kann advocates for Planned Parenthood, and on her LinkedIn page Kann lists volunteer work with Planned Parenthood as well as the Emma Goldman abortion facility. Clearly, Kann’s pro-abortion bent is stronger than most.

The media frequently chooses to ignore factual evidence presented by pro-life groups, while legitimizing less than factual abortion apologists such as Kann and Media Matters. In the words of former Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter, “Journalists are disproportionately liberal on this issue. So they’re more likely to rely on… the information that they get from the pro-choice side.”

If Newsweek wants to maintain an honest reputation, the media giant should invite the pro-life side to present its facts. Somehow I doubt this will happen.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!