TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Originally published as an award winning essay in the 2000, 24th Annual Amy Writing Awards:
By Ron Bowell
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That must be true, because a mere picture recently cost Matt Drudge his job with the Fox Television Network. The picture in question was not pornographic. In fact it was just a baby picture, the very first snapshot of a little guy named Samuel Armas.
You heard right. The risqué Fox network which prides itself on cutting edge TV, balked at showing a baby picture on Drudge's weekly show. The photo in question was taken at the Vanderbilt University Hospital where little Samuel was undergoing in-utero surgery to correct spina bifida abnormalities. During the surgery, tiny Samuel was photographed reaching up through the abdominal incision of his mother and hanging on to the finger of Dr. Joseph P. Bruner.
Matt Drudge wanted to show a picture of that tender moment on his Saturday news show. Fox said that the picture was "being used out of context" and refused to give permission. Drudge disagreed and walked off the job in protest, only to be later "released" from his contract by Fox.
So why would the network of "Real TV" balk at showing such a real-life photo? Why would a picture of a baby hanging on to the finger of a doctor be so controversial?
Well, because baby Samuel was a 21-week-old "fetus" at the time and wasn't "legally" a real person. He wasn't actually born yet. This means that little Samuel was still an eligible candidate for abortion and the cardinal rule in the abortion culture is, "Do not humanize those you may eventually kill." The picture Drudge wanted to air on his show represents what many may call a "fetus" acting like a human being - a concept that some very powerful people would prefer to keep under wraps.
This touching picture (seen below) is a threat because it demolishes a thousand words of abortion propaganda. It shows a tiny human in search of comfort. It shows a tiny human in search of comfort. It shows a little person, not a "mass of tissue," holding on for dear life to the only other person it can find at the moment. And certainly it becomes more difficult to kill babies when they are capable of hanging on to your finger.
It's ironic that Fox assumes its broad-minded viewers can handle seeing the raised hand of a Hitler-style salute, or the raised clinched fists of a few black power protesters, or the raised index fingers of some rebellious youth, but not the raised grasping little hand of a tiny pre-born infant. It's odd that the network which regularly displays half naked "babes" in the flesh would assume we need to be protected from the still picture of a tiny baby.
But Fox is right about one thing. A picture is worth a thousand words, and if the unborn are to remain hostages to "choice," and to the highly lucrative abortion industry, then Fox and other media will have to continue to suppress vivid images like this. With this kind of picture floating around, the masses may start to demand that unborn human beings be accorded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It says a lot about our culture when a single snapshot of life before birth can send chills down the spines of TV executives. At times like these one wishes that more network big shots would hear the truth of the Psalm writer: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (Psalm 139:13 NIV)
It's unfortunate that we live in a nation where the simple picture of an unborn child hanging on for dear life is censored from the airwaves. It's sad that we live in a country where the baby Samuels must remain nameless, faceless and eventually handless until we make the choice about whether they will live or die.
A picture really is worth a thousand words, and perhaps in this case, maybe even a thousand babies. That's why you won't see Samuel's picture any time soon on Fox TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas
By Ron Bowell
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That must be true, because a mere picture recently cost Matt Drudge his job with the Fox Television Network. The picture in question was not pornographic. In fact it was just a baby picture, the very first snapshot of a little guy named Samuel Armas.
You heard right. The risqué Fox network which prides itself on cutting edge TV, balked at showing a baby picture on Drudge's weekly show. The photo in question was taken at the Vanderbilt University Hospital where little Samuel was undergoing in-utero surgery to correct spina bifida abnormalities. During the surgery, tiny Samuel was photographed reaching up through the abdominal incision of his mother and hanging on to the finger of Dr. Joseph P. Bruner.
Matt Drudge wanted to show a picture of that tender moment on his Saturday news show. Fox said that the picture was "being used out of context" and refused to give permission. Drudge disagreed and walked off the job in protest, only to be later "released" from his contract by Fox.
So why would the network of "Real TV" balk at showing such a real-life photo? Why would a picture of a baby hanging on to the finger of a doctor be so controversial?
Well, because baby Samuel was a 21-week-old "fetus" at the time and wasn't "legally" a real person. He wasn't actually born yet. This means that little Samuel was still an eligible candidate for abortion and the cardinal rule in the abortion culture is, "Do not humanize those you may eventually kill." The picture Drudge wanted to air on his show represents what many may call a "fetus" acting like a human being - a concept that some very powerful people would prefer to keep under wraps.
This touching picture (seen below) is a threat because it demolishes a thousand words of abortion propaganda. It shows a tiny human in search of comfort. It shows a tiny human in search of comfort. It shows a little person, not a "mass of tissue," holding on for dear life to the only other person it can find at the moment. And certainly it becomes more difficult to kill babies when they are capable of hanging on to your finger.
It's ironic that Fox assumes its broad-minded viewers can handle seeing the raised hand of a Hitler-style salute, or the raised clinched fists of a few black power protesters, or the raised index fingers of some rebellious youth, but not the raised grasping little hand of a tiny pre-born infant. It's odd that the network which regularly displays half naked "babes" in the flesh would assume we need to be protected from the still picture of a tiny baby.
But Fox is right about one thing. A picture is worth a thousand words, and if the unborn are to remain hostages to "choice," and to the highly lucrative abortion industry, then Fox and other media will have to continue to suppress vivid images like this. With this kind of picture floating around, the masses may start to demand that unborn human beings be accorded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It says a lot about our culture when a single snapshot of life before birth can send chills down the spines of TV executives. At times like these one wishes that more network big shots would hear the truth of the Psalm writer: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." (Psalm 139:13 NIV)
It's unfortunate that we live in a nation where the simple picture of an unborn child hanging on for dear life is censored from the airwaves. It's sad that we live in a country where the baby Samuels must remain nameless, faceless and eventually handless until we make the choice about whether they will live or die.
A picture really is worth a thousand words, and perhaps in this case, maybe even a thousand babies. That's why you won't see Samuel's picture any time soon on Fox TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas
Last edited:
