Dead Fish Wrapper Plays Up Anti-War Protests, Hides Much Larger Pro-Life Rally

So here's a question for you; you're a newspaper, and there are two national events to be covered. First, an annual conservative march that has hundreds of thousands of people, and second, a liberal march that draws only in the tens of thousands of people. How do you cover them? Do you a) give the one with the much larger attendance more coverage, or do you b) give the smaller one much more space because it's a liberal event?

Knowing the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper, this one isn't hard to figure out; the answer is b.

On January 22nd, the annual March For Life took place on the mall in Washington, D.C. The protesters numbered in the hundreds of thousands. According to LifeNews:

Proving the pro-life movement is alive and well despite abortion advocates obtaining control of Congress last November, hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates participated in the annual March for Life. The mood was optimistic and positive despite 34 years of legalized abortion since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

In addition, there were many other March For life events around the country to coincide with the march in Washington. And how much coverage did the Fish Wrapper provide? Here's the entire article:

Tens of thousands of abortion opponents marched through melting snow on the Mall yesterday and vowed to work harder -- since Democrats have taken control of the Capitol -- to overturn the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973. "Pro-lifers aren't going to pack up and go home because of the 2006 elections," said Karen Cross, political director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Monday, the anniversary of the ruling. Democratic leaders have said they prefer what they consider a less combative approach in preparing legislation on the abortion issue. Several bills are circulating that would change the focus of the abortion debate to pregnancy prevention.

No pictures, no mentioning of who spoke (such as President Bush), no nothing.

Then, on Saturday, there was a typical anti-war rally that drew much fewer people. As usual, it involved the typical celebrities who think because they're famous they know what they're talking about, like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon. And how much covereage did the Fish Wrapper give this one? A picture at the bottom of the front page, and another picture with a half page article on page A2.

The most telling quote from the whole article shows how much anti-war loonies like to over hype the numbers at their rallies.

Cox News Service, McClatchy Newspapers, The New York Times, and the Washington Post each described the crown in the tens of thousands.

Hany Khalil, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, said the protesters numbered around 400,000, the Times reported.

Police who no longer give official estimates, told the Associated Press privately that the crowd was smaller than 100,000.

The Fish Wrapper was not alone in displaying this bias. As documented by Tim Graham, the Washington Post was leading the charge.

Within one week, the liberal bias of the The Washington Post is made perfectly obvious. On Monday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for the March for Life, but the hometown paper put the story on the bottom of page A-10 Tuesday morning. On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for a rally against President Bush and the war in Iraq. The Post blasted that story across the front page on Sunday, complete with a large color picture taking a wide shot of hundreds of marchers and their signs and banners. Tuesday’s story on abortion protests matched carried no wide shot of hundreds. It showed four pro-life marchers, and matched them with another picture of five feminists counter-protesting. There were no photos of conservative counter-protesters in the Sunday paper.

Not only did the MSM make a concerted effort to downplay the March For Life, but they did their best to hype the anti-war protests.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as liberal media bias.

User login


Syndicate content