Many 'Old Media' Outlets Offered No Story on March for Life

Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
January 28, 2009 - 13:39 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

It may come as no surprise, but many media outlets ignored the annual March for Life in Washington, DC on January 22, despite many thousands of protesters. ABC, CBS, NBC, and the NewsHour on PBS all failed to offer a story on it. The print editions of Time and Newsweek both ignored it.

Clay Waters of TimesWatch found that even The New York Times ("all the news that’s fit to print"?) skipped it -- for the second year in a row. The Washington Post offered a decent story on page A2, by contrast. USA Today and the Los Angeles Times also offered stories inside their A sections.

Several networks mentioned protests without much definition. On CBS’s Saturday Early Show on January 24, reporter Kimberly Dozier: reported "Despite loud demonstrations this week, Mr. Obama also quietly stepped into the abortion debate" with his executive order allowing international abortion advocates to get federal funds.

In the same show, anchor Priya David offered the same vague narrative: "By week’s end President Obama even stepped into the abortion debate despite protests against abortion during this week's anniversary of Roe vs. Wade."

In a World News Sunday story on ABC, Dan Harris showed a tiny clip of "anti-abortion groups" and their "brutal" commentary on Obama: "Pro-life remains a lie. You don’t care if women die!" This might sound harsh to the uninitiated viewer, but at previous pro-abortion rallies in Washington, abortion advocates have shouted "Pro-life! Your name’s a lie! You don’t care if women die."

On the January 23 NewsHour on PBS, anchor Ray Suarez also mentioned demonstrations (without identifying them as pro-life) once Obama repealed the funding restrictions on international abortion advocates:

Shortly after the Gibbs briefing, President Obama, away from cameras, signed the order that once again reversed the ban. The order came one day after the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, this year, as in other years, marked by large demonstrations and marches through the heart of the national capital.

The news magazines are an interesting case study. Time’s offered barely a paragraph on abortion since Obama’s election, despite the appointment of pro-abortion Cabinet members from Hillary Clinton to Eric Holder to Tom Daschle. (It wasn’t this way with John Ashcroft.)

Since the election, Newsweek has offered a Lisa Miller column on pro-life atheists (she’s fascinated with atheists), and a raging feminist column from Dahlia Lithwick.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ah, it was only 100,000 people

January 28, 2009 - 14:00 ET by SickofLibs

At least WaPo quoted the official estimate of 100K. 

But a report by United Press International called the March, "the smallest 'March for Life' in the event's history", claiming a Capitol Police estimate of the crowd between 5,000 and 8,000 and topping at 15,000.

You gotta be f***ing

January 28, 2009 - 19:27 ET by GrannyGrump42

You gotta be f***ing kidding! There were close to 300,000 people there. And there were additional crowds for other Roe rallies in other cities.

 

We are supposedly in a

January 28, 2009 - 14:10 ET by rbosque

We are supposedly in a financial melt-down but Obama sends millions overseas to kill babies. See folks, his priorities are on display: Killing foriegn babies with our tax money is more important than using it to solve a the financial melt-down the Democrats created.

Another example of the Obamedia running cover for him.

January 28, 2009 - 14:27 ET by supercon

If they don't report it then it didn't happen.

 

Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.

I'll betcha the Pro-Life

January 28, 2009 - 14:32 ET by P. Aaron

I'll betcha the Pro-Life crowd left little or no trash compared to the littering O-bots there for the inaugural. 

 

If comunism is such a great idea, why didn't they put up a picture window instead of an Iron Curtain?

It all depends on what is

January 29, 2009 - 12:15 ET by lotr

It all depends on what is meant by "trash"...  The entire Mall area and surrounding streets and federal buildings are usually covered in pro-life picket signs that linger until well after the March itself disperses.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Well, these anti-lifers can

January 28, 2009 - 14:32 ET by ConservativeRex

Well, these anti-lifers can whistle past the graveyard all they want.  But there's fixin' to be marchers all right.  And whenever we do get organized they or Obami will never be able to stop us.

I mentioned earlier that Obami is losing his voter base due to the fact that an average of 1.2 million abortions since 1973 have been from his voter base.  Now, this killer is sending money overseas to provide funding for abortions. 

Are you aware the bulk of the money going overseas for abortions is going to Africa and other third world countries? 

Isn't unusual that Planned Parenthood desires the same outcome for blacks that the KKK does?

This just proves how evil this administration is.  The libtards complained about President Bush, but all he did was free people.  Obami advocates killing the most innocent of humans.  You make the choice.

→ You're so right

January 28, 2009 - 14:51 ET by Cool Arrow

And those who do escape the womb are supposed to be thankful their mother culled through all the undesirable babies until they settled on the most convenient one.

I don't think so.

Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran

I watched EWTN's coverage

January 28, 2009 - 14:54 ET by moderncommentaries83

I watched EWTN's coverage of the March, which they replayed Saturday morning.

Yeah, there were about 15,000 people there...times TEN.  The March route took longer.  People on the ground reported success.

If the turn out had only been a few thousand, the media would have certainly bragged about the "decline" of the pro-life movement and splashed those numbers everywhere.  The silence indicates the turn out was large.

Heck, a source who went to the West Coast Walk for Life reported tens of thousands there.

We're here and we're not going away.  Abortion is evil and must be stopped. 

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Sorry to go O.T., but did anyone see this?

January 28, 2009 - 14:57 ET by jazbo

" 'House Republicans' kill delay in Digital TV changeover"

"WASHINGTON - Bucking the Obama administration, House Republicans on Wednesday defeated a bill to postpone the upcoming transition from analog to digital television broadcasting to June 12 — leaving the current Feb. 17 deadline intact for now.

The 258-168 vote failed to clear the two-thirds threshold needed for passage. It's a victory for the GOP members, who warn that postponing the transition would confuse consumers."

 By a 258 to 168 vote. Wow, and here I thought they were only 179 GOP members or so. No mention that at least 80 Dems also voted against it?

 Is AP's math this bad, or just their intentions? I think I know.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090128/ap_on_hi_te/tec_digital_tv_transition

Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.

I saw it

January 28, 2009 - 15:13 ET by SickofLibs

"Bush bungled the publicity of the switchover", so they want to delay it. The Obama team are the only ones who have the graphic design/branding prowess to pull it off.

Anybody who isn't aware of the switch after all the hype of the past two years has been living under a rock and doesn't have a TV anyway. 

They want to delay it

January 28, 2009 - 15:19 ET by general company

until they can buy everyone without a cable ready tv a new one, ya know, to stimulat the economy,,,,,,,,and buy a few more votes

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

This is one of the reasons

January 28, 2009 - 15:18 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

This is one of the reasons for the decline of the old media. People are becoming more and more aware of their bias, political leanings and manipulation of facts and stories and are getting sick of it. The web will bring the death of the old media.  The old media is/ is becoming a blog/video blog for the left.

I disagree.  THIS is one

January 28, 2009 - 16:01 ET by moderncommentaries83

I disagree.  THIS is one of the reasons why the left is itching to control the media - specifically conservative talk radio, blogs, newspapers, and TV news programs.

They act as gatekeepers.  The "news" they want us to receive they allow through.  The news they don't want us to know, they sit on.

The other forms of media I mentioned above have let the horse out of the barn, so to speak.  Stories you'd have never heard - like the March for Life turnout - in the MSM are popping up on the Internet (where it's darned near impossible to scrub anything) and the airwaves.

It annoys them that they've lost control on their own version of Pravda, so they're looking for their masters in the DNC to step up and take care of the problem for them via the (Un)Fairness Doctrine or some other Orwellian law designed to stifle free speech.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Please, stop calling them "Old Media."

January 28, 2009 - 15:46 ET by CKA in Red State USA

Once, the "Old Media" had some semblance of objectivity, ethics and professionalism. Maybe not much, but some.

What it morphed into is the advocacy/adversary media, which collectively and through its individual participants, has no ethics, lacks professionalism, cannot spell or understand objectivity--and which has become the traitorous Fifth Column, not the Fourth Estate entrusted with keeping the public informed.

But, yes, "Old Media" could refer to the print and broadcast media.

We got exactly waht I

January 28, 2009 - 16:37 ET by bigtimer

We got exactly waht I expected from all of the msm regarding the March for Life.

They never disappoint.

Most reporters don't have to

January 28, 2009 - 17:24 ET by jgarcia

Most reporters don't have to worry about this subject, they were born...... Regardless of view point...... in the end the child is the one who pays the price for two adults!

Nor

January 28, 2009 - 18:16 ET by kilrod

Nor did i see it mentioned here untill  today, makes me sad.

There has been some comments as to how to refer to the humanoid who was declared the winner in the presidential election 2008. I will refer to him as, o-Dumb-uh-uh, are, the baby butcher in the whitehouse. I will never address him as President, i will oppose every thing he proposes, every thought he has, every program he supports, i hope he fails, unless and untill he repents and changes his ways. I Pray for his soul and his repentance.

   kilrod

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

So can I call him a "baby

January 29, 2009 - 10:47 ET by Texasteacher

So can I call him a "baby killer" like all those caring and generous hippy libs called my dad when he came back from Vietnam?

 

 

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

Abortion can be STOPPED without ANY laws ...

January 28, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Jayke

... AMERICA!  STOP ABORTING YOUR BABIES.  The governement cannot force you to abort your baby ... YET.

The LA Times covered the

January 28, 2009 - 19:26 ET by GrannyGrump42

The LA Times covered the March -- with a picture of two proabortion counter protesters that most of the 300,000 prolifers never even saw.

I was waiting for this story on NB....

January 29, 2009 - 12:39 ET by lotr

I was waiting for this story, as it remains one of the most blatant examples of media bias.

The March for Life draws at least 100,000 pro-lifers annually, yet national and local media do their best to ignore it or downplay it.

To be fair, part of this is due to the lack of sensational pop-media appeal: These people aren't getting arrested, don't throw rocks at the cops, don't get hit with tear gas, don't participate in audacious left-wing displays (like flag burning), don't yell profanities, aren't smoking pot, aren't having impromptu acid-rock concerts, aren't calling for the overthrow of "American Imperialism," aren't calling for Bush's head on a platter, do not contain sexually explicit material, etc. -- you know, the sort of stuff that "peace" activists usually resort to (one cannot make up such irony).  Instead they are typically well-mannered, respectful of law enforcement, praying, hoping, and testifying to the reality of abortion.  It just ain't sexy enough.

But, the more important factor, no doubt, in the "hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil" media treatment of this otherwise significant annual protest is simply a left-leaning media bias.  I hope NB will continue to report on these in future years.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Great comment lotr! +UK gun ban protest video!

January 29, 2009 - 14:01 ET by MaximusBraveheart

I just read through this & the comments.  

Sad state of many people in the USA, that MURDER (preplanned KILLING of an innocent) cannot be seen for what it IS.  Yet these same blind people want to take your gun away, that you use to defend yourself and family FROM murderers.  So they are on the side of murder both ways (the unborn, and us, the born) by defending both types of murderers!  Unreal.  This is our day and age.

Please watch this RE the UK gun ban and skyrocketing crime.  The whole thing is excellent:  http://www.youtube.c...

This video only has
203,188 views.  I am sceptical on that count (too low); did the count go up when you watched? 

England Gun Ban Update

 

M-B

thanks -- nice video too

January 29, 2009 - 21:48 ET by lotr

Even if it's a bit off topic, it's good to see there are some Brits who still have a backbone.  Very scary to see that the UK government has confiscated their citizens' firearms; hope that they rescind that decision.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

FYI on veiw number above

February 3, 2009 - 15:50 ET by MaximusBraveheart

I checked back and the viewing number has gone up significantly to  218,159.   Still lower than I would hope considering how important this video is and its implacations here in the US.

M-B