BBC doesn't tell you that Guttmacher is a pro-abortion campaign group

On the 8am Radio 4 News today, the BBC presented the latest publication by the pro-abortion organisation, The Guttmacher Institute, as a report by "sexual health experts". A lot of unsubstantiated figures were reeled out to support this so-called expert opinion.

The BBC don't produce transcripts, but here is the text (with my italics).

"Research suggest the number of abortions performed world wide is falling. The study says that there are no reduction in what it calls unsafe abortions carried out in countries where the practice is heavily restricted. Jane Draper reporting. [Jane Draper:] 'Sexual health experts from the Guttmacher institute analysed official figures and data about medical complications which may have arisen from illegal abortions. Researchers found that since the mid 1990s, the number of abortions worldwide has fallen from 45 milliion to 41 million. This they said was due to increased provision in contraception particularly in Eastern Europe and Africa, but they estimate unsafe abortions cause 70,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. In N.Ireland terminations are still restricted but some women travel to Britain or abroad to end unwanted pregrancies. A group called Comment for Reproductive Ethics, which campaigns for respect for the human embryo said abortion wasn't the answer and it didn't liberate women.'"

Firstly, SPUC are categorical that these figures are false.

The figures used are highly dubious: what is the source of the "offical data" and how is it compiled? How does anyone get statistics on "unsafe" abortions, which are presumably illegal? Yet the Guttmacher have a history of providing these statistics. The numbers on which the report is based are "estimates" by the researchers themselves. To be fair, Draper inserts "they say" as a rather faint parenthesis, but the figures are to all intents and purposes treated as statistical fact.

And left unstated is the fact that the Guttmacher institute is itself a campaigning organisation. As ever, pro-abortion propaganda is represented as objective and scientific, pro-life campaigners as mere moralists. The reference to CORE is a nod towards balance but CORE are described as campaigners, the Guttmacher people as experts. What would a person who hasn't looked into the matter be led to conclude?

Odd that Draper uses CORE,who are more interested in artificial conception, rather than another anti-abortion group: by focusing on "respect for embryo", Draper obscures the point that many abortions take place on foetuses who can be of 6 or 7 months+ gestation, a practice objectionable to many people who don't concede that the embryo is alive. CORE's response seemed generic also: was it a reply to the Guttmacher report or taken from another context?: there's nothing on their website.

It looks to me like Draper has framed the issue as a debate between scientific researchers and anti-abortion ideologues. That the BBC health correspondent, is reporting this news item is an example of how the debate on abortion is expunged of any moral dimension and treated pseudo-scientifically as a health issue.

There is an oblique swipe at Northern Ireland's restrictive laws, which continue to be a target of pro-abortion campaigners, juxtaposed with the estimate of women killed as a result of "unsafe" abortions. The reporter seems to have incorporated Northern Ireland into the news item on her own initiative.

As Robin Aitken says in Can we Trust the BBC?,abortion is one of those issues on where the BBC promotes its own opinions, although it is required to maintain a pretence of objectivity.

Collapse of the US car industry - don't mention Free Trade policies

A short piece on the possible collapse of the American automotive industry on the Today programme failed to mention America’s suicidal Free Trade policy. It mentioned globalisation, possible bad decision-making from the big three manufacturers on the issue of fuel consumption; but it failed to mention that the tariffs of Asian manufacturers are consistently higher than those of the United States. With a lack of a level playing field, then one by one American – and European – industries will die away leaving the Western World de-industrialised, impoverished and militarily unable to defend ourselves. But hooray! maybe we’ll achieve our climate change targets? Think of the plaudits from all those EU and UN agencies, not to mention global climate change campaigners like George Monbiot.

This is an area where the West must think strategically about its long-term interests. The all-pervasive ideology of global internationalism, the baleful influence of which can be seen in climate change targets, mass immigration, free trade and outsourcing, even the War on Terror, is the great distraction: it prevents us seeing clearly and safeguarding our own interests. This crosses left and right boundaries because the internationalist left has made an alliance with a big business sector, which recognises no loyalty to any country, only its own profits.

Defenders of Free Trade said that only low-tech industries like textiles would go abroad, the West would keep high-tech industries; now we see computers and sophisticated electronics are manufactured in China, the US Car industry is collapsing. Our competitors have high tariffs while ours are low; unless the West raises its tariffs in response, the Asian countries will continue to ignore our protestations about Free Trade and the Global Good, and keep trading with an unfair advantage. Why should they do otherwise, if we don’t take reasonable measures to defend our interests? The reason we keep our tariffs low is due confusion between our interests and the supposed interests of the global community, a misplaced belief that a lack of trade barriers leads to greater security and long-term prosperity. Note how free traders, when pressed about the benefits or lack of benefits to the West, end up saying that it lifts millions of people in the third world out of poverty – i.e. it is good for the world (they say), if not for us. This is at best only partially true. The fact that China keeps targeting its industrial output towards export to the West rather than their own consumers is detrimental to their own people, but good for the country’s long-term quest for hegemony over the United States. Moreover, the dependence of China on our debt-fuelled consumption means that their people are now losing their jobs because of our lack of finance; if they had been less export-dependent, the pain for Chinese workers would be less than it is going to be. Limited trade is good, too much trade will lead to greater volatility.