Surely reporting should be objective, and opinions should be reserved for editorials and commentary. Miriam Lord's "colour pieces" in The Irish Times (which are never in the least bit funny or colourful) are first-hand accounts of current events (classed as "News" on the website) and it should be her duty to remain impartial. This she doesn't do-- on the abortion issue, certainly, she makes no attempt to hide her bias.
As in this article today:
As Walsh outlined what can happen as a result of “post-abortion trauma”, one wondered how the fabric of Irish society hasn’t completely disintegrated given the amount of our womenfolk who have had abortions.
Jim is a committed campaigner and has taken his cause on to the floor of the Seanad on countless occasions. He is not a man to mince his words, known for his graphic and gruesome accounts of what is done to foetuses in the womb.
But even allowing for his track record of formaldehyde-infused stories of women destroyed and babies in buckets, yesterday’s contribution to the debate on the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill was disgusting.
She then lambasts the Senator for a graphic description of what actually happens to the aborted foetus. But why? Why are facts so dangerous? Why should the truth be taboo? Why are the same people who are usually so devoutly anti-censorship suddenly squeamish when it comes to the reality of abortion? (Peter Hitchens sagely described abortion as the only act of violence not regularly shown on television.)
Later on, she allows: The Senator stressed at the outset that he believes “human life is inviolate from conception to natural death”. That is a legitimate and not uncommon belief.
Legitimate? For now it's legitimate. How long before it becomes hate speech? The boundaries of political correctness are being rolled forward all the time.