As the new year began, The New York Times offered a 780-word article to a protest for illegal immigrants – with four marchers walking from Miami to Washington. But on Saturday, tens of thousands of Americans gathering in Washington for Friday's annual March for Life received – part of a sentence.
In the Saturday paper on January 23, an article on the trial facing the killer of late-term abortionist George Tiller on page A-11 featured this note in paragraph 9 of a 12-paragraph dispatch by Monica Davey:
Testimony began the same day that abortion rights groups celebrated, and abortion opponents protested, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.
Times defenders could note that The Caucus blog on the Times website offered a two-sentence preview on Friday:
37 Years: Just one day after the Supreme Court announced its latest landmark decision, abortion opponents will gather in Washington to mark the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Among the events: a National March for Life rally.
The Washington Post carried a calm story by William Wan on the March for Life with color photos of each side of the abortion divide. (An online video on the Post website gave substantial time to both sides, even though the pro-abortion contingent was vastly outnumbered, as usual.)
The Los Angeles Times covered the Tiller trial in Wichita, but reporter Robin Abcarian made no mention of the March for Life. Neither did anyone else at that paper.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
NewsBusters is turning 5. Enter our free t-shirt contest to help us celebrate!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wow
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:19 ET by well99Four marchers.That equals the number of NYTimes subscribers.Just kidding I think there is five.
Same thing...
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:37 ET by unkeeafThis is the same thing they pulled around the Tea Party protests. You'd have 5,000 people show up and the media would either ignore it or greatly undersell the size of the demonstration.
-------------------------------------
Your President Might Be A Moron If...
http://bit.ly/4uAwwz
unkeeaf
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:34 ET by well99Yes it is.Pretty disgusting.They will do anything to surpress dissent unless it is their cause.
Rights? give it a rest!!!
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:56 ET by Patriot IIYou have the right to abstain!! You have the right to put the child up for adoption!! You have the right to use birth control!! You have the right to take responsibility and raise the child! You do not have the right to murder by mayhem, literally tearing the baby to pieces while still in the womb!!!
Anti-American
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:40 ET by dbz77The New York Times is clearly anti-American.
The article said the
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:44 ET by mostlymoderateThe article said the students in the march were illegals themselves. What do you wanna bet we are paying for them to go to college?
Only in America can you
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:45 ET by CCsteelcityOnly in America can you march for illegals... and yet be one. Where was border patrol in DC when they got there?
Where's Sheriff Arpaio when you need him!
"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." - Bill Clinton in 2008 from "Game Change"
Only at NewsBusters can the
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:01 ET by JerOnly at NewsBusters can the NYT publish an article publicizing a protest against the Obama administration--and still get hammered for it.
Jer
Jer -
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:54 ET by TeamcheeserI'm sorry, but what part of this article is about the Obama administration?
Deflect much?
Any comment on the fact that the NY Times spent so much ink on the "Million Minus Nine-Hundred-Ninety-Nine-Tousand-Nine-Hundred-Ninety-Six Man March" but ignored the Pro-Life march?
That is easy
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:01 ET by legacyrepublicanWhat does this article have to do with the Obama Administration?
That is easy!
The administration is doing all it can to advance its abortion agenda and it wants to hide that fact. So the MSM helps it by playing three card montee with the truth.
Teamcheeser...
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 17:28 ET by Jer"I'm sorry, but what part of this article is about the Obama administration?"
The part, as set forth in the opening paragraph and elsewhere in the referenced NYT article, which reports that the goal of the marchers is to protest the Obama administration's policy on immigration.
That part.
Jer
Jer -
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 02:41 ET by TeamcheeserYou are the only person who has brought up that it was a protest against the Obama administration.
I think you are off base in tryng to criticize Newsbusters.
The reason the story was posted has nothing to do with why four protesters were protesting. It has everything to do with why the NY Times chose to cover THAT protest -- which could've just been four guys walking out of a movie theater arguing about who ate all the popcorn -- and not a protest that actually had an attendance that most folks could not fit in their livingroom.
But, of course, you know all of this.
You're not stupid, you just play stupid on "NB".
Okay,
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 03:00 ET by JerOkay, Teamcheeser...
Point taken. It was hardly a savage attack on NB--not that you implied it was--but rather a minor shot in the general category of harmless tweaking. I think this site will survive and thrive despite such criticism.
Jer
Jer -
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 03:29 ET by TeamcheeserI don't buy that old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything."
But if you are going to say something not nice, then at least make sure it's honest.
Your "tweaking" was dishonest in a way that, believe it or not, I think is beneath you.
I do appreciate that you said, "Point taken." And I really hope you do take it to heart.
Teamcheeser...
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 03:38 ET by JerI'll plead guilty to deflection and to a lack of relevancy and perhaps to a few other polemical offenses, but not to dishonesty.
Aren't we devoting a bit more attention to this issue than it deserves?
Jer
Jer
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:25 ET by well99Your right.It isnt about how little ink NYT applys to non leftist causes.Besides four people is a lot.
Only at NB do they allow
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:12 ET by gmaniac1Only at NB do they allow crazed lefties to leave messages that have nothing to do with reality or the topic at hand.
Yeah, NB really should do
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 17:30 ET by JerYeah, NB really should do something about that problem.
Jer
250,000
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:44 ET by kilrodOne News Now reported the Pro-Life march at 250,000.!!~~!!
(grins) kilrod
2010 'heartwarming' March for Life
According to the estimates, the annual March for Life attracted over 250,000 people yesterday, drawing wide participation in the rally against legalized abortion.
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
I am struck by something I
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:26 ET by MazziI am struck by something I have observed in many many liberals. The idea that "if they don't see it, it doesn't exist". With the press, it seems to be even more of a problem - "if they see it but ignore it, it doesn't exist".
I do sometimes wonder how many of these reporters are really soldiers for the cause, and how many are frustrated by having their hands tied. If they DO their job, they lose their job; if they DON'T do their job, they get a nice paycheck, promotions and perks. No wonder everything is twisted and warped in their worlds.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt