Entry Mission Three: Slanted Reports
Hey, there again, I am here to bring a film that was released to your attention, and to the light that it may deserve. If you had read my previous blogs, you know my interest in films, but I stumbled upon reading about facts that connect to the film Gosnell. I was unaware of the film, as the advertisements on the films have been pulled from the general audience. What you may also be unaware of is the facts itself. Gosnell ran an abortion clinic and the reasoning behind his life sentence in prison is involuntary manslaughter. Now that you know the facts behind the man, we can dive into breaking down the report that I can come across to define more of an opinion.
The title of the article by Jason Riley, October 16 at The Wall Street Journal fires away, "Movie of a Murderer serving life sentence faces media blackout."(Riley). Riley doesn't take the consideration of going into the trail and only goes directly going into the film itself. Then he introduces the article itself with an opinion/thought on the matter, "“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination"(Riley).
I took the time to travel back to the time the events were happening, and I myself can not remember this trial happening, in fact, the report of the movie that I came across is the number one connection that I have to any of this information. The movie itself may be unsettling, but there is no detail that goes into describing why, how, or even the people that said that it was unsettling, meaning that it is the author's judgment that is stated. There are only the facts of the case that carry the report, but the entire piece of work is one-sided. There is information, but no detail behind why people found the topic of the film unsettling.
Yes, there is disturbing information that is there in the report, the way that this man was "ignored" seems inhuman. "In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet, and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern"(Riley). This man was obviously a criminal, it is against the law to sell over the counter drugs in this fashion. Was this there to build the man's reputation and see what lead to getting as much money as he could? That is for you to decide.
What is more horrifying, maybe the reason why people do not like to discuss the topic, was when the officials ignored the matter after finding out about this information. "Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way"(Riley). Then, he goes to describe the process of the trail being ignored, as it transferred to going into the topic of abortion itself. So, there was a light that was shined on the matter, just not on the main criminal that was causing the spiral of events to occur. I guess that the police wanted to put it under the rug that they ignored what was happening on the opposing side of the counter.
You can review the article located Here. -Brandon.
The title of the article by Jason Riley, October 16 at The Wall Street Journal fires away, "Movie of a Murderer serving life sentence faces media blackout."(Riley). Riley doesn't take the consideration of going into the trail and only goes directly going into the film itself. Then he introduces the article itself with an opinion/thought on the matter, "“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination"(Riley). I took the time to travel back to the time the events were happening, and I myself can not remember this trial happening, in fact, the report of the movie that I came across is the number one connection that I have to any of this information. The movie itself may be unsettling, but there is no detail that goes into describing why, how, or even the people that said that it was unsettling, meaning that it is the author's judgment that is stated. There are only the facts of the case that carry the report, but the entire piece of work is one-sided. There is information, but no detail behind why people found the topic of the film unsettling.
Yes, there is disturbing information that is there in the report, the way that this man was "ignored" seems inhuman. "In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet, and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern"(Riley). This man was obviously a criminal, it is against the law to sell over the counter drugs in this fashion. Was this there to build the man's reputation and see what lead to getting as much money as he could? That is for you to decide.
What is more horrifying, maybe the reason why people do not like to discuss the topic, was when the officials ignored the matter after finding out about this information. "Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way"(Riley). Then, he goes to describe the process of the trail being ignored, as it transferred to going into the topic of abortion itself. So, there was a light that was shined on the matter, just not on the main criminal that was causing the spiral of events to occur. I guess that the police wanted to put it under the rug that they ignored what was happening on the opposing side of the counter.
You can review the article located Here. -Brandon.
Comments
Post a Comment