Last week this country marked 40 years since the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in this country. Last week also marked the 40th Annual March for Life protesting this landmark decision. At this point it is widely agreed that at least 500,000 people participated in the 2013 March for Life and some sources put the figure at 600,000 or more. By some estimates the March for Life drew more people than did the inauguration held just days earlier! Yet where was the media?! Where were all the stories covering this massive event?! No mainstream media network even bothered to devote "legitimate" coverage to the march and the few newspaper stories that were run simply said that "thousands" or "tens of thousands" came out.
Yet the VERY NEXT DAY, less then 5,000 people, including 100 from Newtown, Connecticut, showed up to march on the Capitol for tighter gun control and the media was everywhere! CNN, Yahoo, MSNBC, if you were a liberal main stream media outlet then you were there with all kinds of cameras giving the issue all kinds of coverage.
Regardless of your views on the issue of abortion, this information should be incredibly disconcerting. A pro-gun control march drew less than 1 percent of the total number of people who showed up to March for Life and yet that march was front page, top of the hour news while the March for Life was buried deep within papers and news shows if it was even mentioned at all. The New York Times did actually give "serious" coverage to the march for the first time in six years by writing, for the online version at least, its first full story on the march since 2007. What's worse though is that the media doesn't even describe the march correctly.
According to the AP, news outlets aren't supposed to call marchers in the March for Life "pro-life". Instead, they are to be referred to as "anti-abortion activists". As I was typing this post, I opened my own copy of the AP Style Book and confirmed this. This has even led to major pro-life activists being misrepresented in news stories. I read the article last week and regretfully could not find it again, but in one story from the MSM, the Director of Pro-Life Activities here in the Archdiocese of Washington was cited as the Director for "Anti-Abortion" Activities.
Why is that? Why can't the media be honest and use the term pro-life? There is nothing negative about that title, nothing offensive about that title. And those who are pro-life support much more than an end to abortion. To varying degrees, pro-lifers may also support an end to terrorism, war, violence and capital punishment. In the interest of full disclosure I am pro-life but I am still a staunch supporter of the death penalty.
After the stunning general silence about the March for Life 2013 and the subsequent almost blanket media coverage of the gun control march the next day, it has become very obvious that the media at large has a clear liberal agenda. The MSM only wants to provide coverage to stories which promote that agenda. If you will also notice, the media is also ignoring a new and growing group of people who identify as "pro-life and pro-gay"
If you still think the MSM is "fair and balanced" with its coverage after reading this, then you may need to seek expert help. If the media were truly fair and balanced then not only would the March for Life have gotten the media coverage it deserved, but there's a good chance Obama would have lost the election like he deserved.
Jimmy Williams
No comments:
Post a Comment