Protest the war in Iraq on January 27, and the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post will reward you with front page headlines and pieces running 1200 words or more. Protest the war in the womb on January 22, in larger numbers, and the only press you will get will be an article of roughly half-length, buried on page A10 of the Post, or one with text only (sorry, no cameras allowed) in the much smaller Washington Times.
Do not expect any coverage of the March for Life from the New York Times *, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, or L.A. Times. Every January 22, said news crews are predictably M.I.A.
Antiwar demonstrators making front page
of the Washington Post, January 27, 2007.
* Apparently my internet search for articles on the March for Life in D.C. was not exhaustive. Andrew St. Hilaire points out in the comments section that the NYT did in fact run a piece on the pro-life demonstration. Of course, as he also notes, the argument still stands: mainstream media coverage of anti-war and anti-abortion protests is anything but balanced.
1 comment:
Tom! The second I saw your blog url, I was all over it. Glad to see it finally come to fruition. I hope to be sailing the same boat here one of these days.
Now, although your post speaks volumes of truth about the media's deaf ear to the pro-life movement, I will not have you slander God's only begotten news source, the NY Times.
I will have you know that they DID publish an article on the March for Life in DC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23abortion.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
When they say "Thousands" they probably meant to say "Hundreds of thousands." Will you cut them any slack?
Post a Comment