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.
The Post not only let the anti-Iraq rally dominate the front page, but devoted an entire page (A-8) to more photos and a story on student protesters. The front-page story carried over to most of page A-9. Jane Fonda’s appearance at the march drew another story, placed on the front page of the Style section.
The lead story was headlined "Thousands Protest Bush Policy: As Senate Prepares to Debate Troop Increase, Demonstrators Demand War’s End." Inside, the story carried the headine "Opposition to War Is Growing, Protesters Say." It could be said that an anti-abortion rally seems to have little impact, given liberal Democrats now lead both the House and Senate. But it could also be said that the surge of troops to Iraq is under way, and non-binding Senate or House resolutions aren’t going to stop it.
On the top of page A-8, the headline was "Thousands of Voices Send A Clear Message" over five color photos of protesters. At the bottom of the page was a story titled "Student Protesters, Fighting Image of Apathy, Call for a Cohesive Movement." Reporter Megan Greenwell even interviewed former Weather Underground member Mark Rudd, but didn’t mention that what she called a "revolutionary group" were self-proclaimed communists who advocated the overthrow of the democratic government of the United States.
The lead story by Michael Ruane and Frederick Kunkle had a very typical, even gooey beginning emphasizing the diversity of the marchers:
A raucous and colorful multitude of protesters, led by some of the aging activists of the past, staged a series of rallies and a march on the Capitol yesterday to demand that the United States end its war in Iraq.
Under a blue sky with a pale midday moon, tens of thousands of people angry about the war and other policies of the Bush administration danced, sang, shouted and chanted their opposition.
They came from across the country and across the activist spectrum, with a wide array of grievances. Many seemed to be under 30, but there were others who said they had been at the famed war protests of the 1960s and '70s.
Inside, Ruane and Kunkel quoted Democratic leaders, but never asked if an inflamed anti-war movement could turn on Democrats or cause internal party divisions. The reported that a 10 am rally sponored by "the peace group CODEPINK" featured speeches by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey. Tom Daschle seemed to promise the protest size will only grow:
"Its primary value is that it keeps up the pressure," said former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "There is a sense that by summer, a march like this will be two or three times as large."
The Post duo did reproduce some of the Tim Robbins Bush-Is-Like-Hitler screed:
Robbins mocked President Bush, urging Congress to impeach him.
"Let's get him out of office before he's ruling from a bunker," Robbins said.
"Impeach Bush!'' the crowd began to chant, interspersed with a few shouts of "And Cheney!"
"Richard Nixon talked to the walls," Robbins continued. "But George Bush is talking to God. But it is not a God I recognize. This God seems to be giving Bush a pass" on some commandments.
The top of the front-page was a perfect lineup of Liberal News: the protest story was flanked on the lert by "Vietnam Shades [Sen. John] Warner's Iraq Stand," and flanked on the right by "Clinton Begins Her Run In Earnest."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Terrible double standard once
January 28, 2007 - 13:44 ET by HumanEventsTerrible double standard once again. The pro-life marches keep getting scant coverage, whereas this anti Iraq war (which is really just an anti Bush) march, pro abortion marches, homosexual marches, and any other rally for liberalism get tremendous exposure.
At least the print media of the MSM keep losing circulation and the tv MSM continue to lose viewers. They'll never change their extremely biased left-wing "reporting", of course. But at least their influence will be less and less.
Surely it's easy to understand..
January 28, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Gary HallSurely it's easy to understand.. Tim. The pro-life protestors (protesting killings in far greater numbers than the anti-war, pro-killing folks), had to bear horrific weather conditions - slushy wet snow and cold. On the other hand the anti-war (pro-killing baby folks) had to bask in the sunshine.
It's very much like the green zone in Baghdad - the media's not going to go out where it's not comfortable.
..all tounge in cheek, of course. (;~> gary
LA Times ...
January 28, 2007 - 14:53 ET by Dave PierreHere's what the LOS ANGELES TIMES did:
Covering the March for Life: They tossed 410 words and a b&w photo on the bottom of page A10 (Tue. Jan. 23, 2007) (here).
Covering the anti-war march: A generous color photo on the top of the front page, plus 920 words and two more b&w photos on page A13.
Disparate coverage? Absolutely.
dear dave pierre
January 28, 2007 - 14:59 ET by tumbler_2007Surely you haven't been taking the Los Angeles Times for an impartial fishwrap have you? Just off-hand I can't even name one California paper that gives a damn about Pro Life. You should just peek into The Sacramento Bee and the SF Chronicle. Fish scrapings are too good for those two.
No not huge difference. Thats
January 28, 2007 - 14:07 ET by tkeefeNo not huge difference. Thats what we seem to forget. Just 1 small difference, the one they are for. And the one they are against. That is all that they need to justify their covereage. It is as simple as that. Don't spend hours trying to figure it out.
New Trend?
January 28, 2007 - 14:26 ET by acumenThis topic was brought up in today's homily at Mass by our very devout, holy (and thankfully can add), traditional priest who along with 5 busloads of pilgrims from his very small parish made the journey to the DC pro-life rally.
This kindly old priest made the same argument about WaPo's treatment of both protests. He added an interesting take that he found in a column by a great conservative correspondent, Rick Martinez in our local Raleigh N&O which is not a stretch to label as a liberal paper. I would like to share this positive NEWS with my fellow busters.
Here is just a short excerpt from Rick's piece (emphasis mine);
"Monday's March For Life rally in Washington to protest the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade merited only a page 10 story in the next day's Washington's Post.That brought a smirk to my face. If tens of thousands of pro-choice advocates had marched on the capital, I doubt I would have gone much farther than page one to find that story."
"No matter. Journalists are good at covering events, but not trends. On Monday the bigger story was a trend that merited front-page coverage, but was missing. I spotted it, and if you're pro-choice you have reason to be worried."
"As I scanned the faces, the crowd's youthfulness was striking. These weren't kids, but rather young women and men just out of the starting gate toward building their futures. The scene was in striking contrast to the pro-choice rallies I've seen on C-SPAN, populated mostly by middle-aged and older women. That demographic difference is emblematic of the daunting challenge faced by the next generation of pro-choice advocates." Rick's complete article can be found here.
Rick goes on in some detail so I won't elaborate. However, I would like to add something that Rick strayed away from. It is the striking resemblence in demography that exists between the anti-Bush rally and pro-choice rallies. The anti-Bush rally is populated by middle-aged and older products of the got-to-revolution sixties. This similarity would indicate the youth of America, despite the Mediacratic Party's best efforts to pimp the ho look and fill America's youthful minds of a Hitleresque image of Bush, are not interested in fighting their predecessor's battle. In fact, it appears America's youth are more interested in fighting their predecessor's ideology rather than joining their ranks.
Just another brief personal observation; Last night on Talkshow with Spike Feresten (definitely not your typical lib late night mediacrat host) on the Fox Channel, I noticed that most of his audience were young. Spike made a joke about Cheney shooting the whole country of Portugal. The audience booed to the extent, Spike made a comment (paraphrasing); oh, you don't like jokes about Cheney? Good times......
I hope Rick is right about this trend. Demographics at the various rallies seem to indicate Rich might be on to something. Hopefully the old media will soon catch up with these young trend-setters but I doubt I will live to see that day. Afterall, with these burnt-out living-in-the-past Mediacrats, it is and always has been all about them.
encouraging--
January 28, 2007 - 15:16 ET by tumbler_2007Yeah, it's encouraging. If only we had some kind of handle on academicians in the U.S. now. Maybe an end to tenured professors or a moratorium on college enrollments. Universities are the hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, and until the schools start to impart a truly diverse education, new leftists enter society every June. Disgusting.
Good Author Tumbler
January 28, 2007 - 16:14 ET by acumenTumbler - I'm glad you read this article by Mr. Martinez (as I was writing the above comment on Tim's post, I was actually thinking about you and the fact that the referenced article was written by a very capable writer with similar ethnic roots as yourself and that would hopefully give you joy - I actually wrote those sentiments in my original post but ended up deleting them, concerned that you might interpret my comments in a negative way). Mr. Martinez and his wife Donna, have also co-hosted several conservative talk shows on WPTF - AM in the area and are well-received in our conservative community.
My hope is that you will make a stronger attempt to reconcile with other posters here Tumbler. I realize the only real stumbling block is "illegal" immigration and I pray that you can seperate the issue of compassion to those oppressed souls with the issue of unlawfully entering your country. The first comment I read by you was your powerful defense of the Catholic faith and I have to tell you that I was quite impressed. I enjoyed your passion and well-reasoned approach. How quickly things devolved when the illegal entry issue arose.
Perhaps in the future it would be beneficial to all if we focus more on our conservative similarties, rather than offering comments to our fellow conservatives that are heated, divisive and only end when we have run out of names to call each other - I know you truly want that Tumbler. And as we have recently lost Congress our country is more than ever in need of conservatives coming together to fight the good fight. Self-serving Mediacrats never rest.
But hey, what do I know anyway.
I have to leave now to go help my mother-in-law. Take care Tumbler.
James Taranto of the WSJ of
January 28, 2007 - 16:46 ET by motherbeltJames Taranto of the WSJ often talks about what he calls the "Roe Effect." In a nutshell: Pro-abortion women from the late seventies on aborted their babies. So now what we are seeing is a swell in the numbers of women born to pro-life women. These women are now in their 20's, and, having been given birth and raised by pro-life mothers, are pro-life themselves.
This is why the pro-life rallies today are filled with a younger generation of women. This may be why you hear the radical feminists bewailing the decrease in the number of younger pro-abortion advocates. They think it's because women nowadays take abortion for granted, not realizing that it must still be fought for. The reality may be that the younger generation is pro-life because their mothers were.
great contrast tim!i call the
January 28, 2007 - 14:55 ET by buddycgreat contrast tim!
i call the actions of the washington post and ny times "attempted social engineering". they know what they want our country to be like and they are doing their best to get us there.
as for me, i will have none of it. i want to think for myself. i think we can see the results of such efforts in all the failed societies that tried to use the news medai to create conduct and beliefs.
look what happend the middle east under strict muslim domination of thought, to russia, china, eastern europe, and germany under hitler. the results range from societies that fail to progress, fail in total, and to societies that are dangerous to humanity. will people like those who occupy position of power at the post and times ever learn??
just two examples of manipulation of opinions through the news. the liberals have dominated debate, media coverage and power in two areas in this country over the past 40 years. those areas are education and generation of energy. nukes = bad, exploration=bad, refineries=bad, coal=bad, oil shale=bad, drilling=bad, dams=bad, water retention=bad, education excellence=bad, teacher merit=bad, education choice=bad, alternatives to public education=bad, elimination of tenure=bad, admissions based on merit=bad.
as a result of these views that have become accepted fact in america we are totally dependent on despots, crooks, drug lords, and nutballs for our energy supply and we are dependent on lazy, incompetent, corupt, lousy educators for our kids' education.
when their plans fail, they dream up excuses like lack of funding, corrupt oil companies who use criminal means to prevent the 300 mpg car from coming forward, to claims of recial discrimination to explain away their failures. they appeal to are fears and lowest instincts to hide the bankruptcy of their views.
perhaps some liberal could point out one single social goal of the washington post or ny times that has benefited this country in the past 40 years. just one????
I know, I know, it's the libe
January 28, 2007 - 15:25 ET by balboaI know, I know, it's the liberal bias that causes the discrepancy in story size and placement. But could PART of the cause be, just a small, teeny-tiny bit, be the fact that an anti-war demonstration is a more relevant story for today, given the fact we're at war, than a pro-life demonstration?
What matters most
January 28, 2007 - 15:34 ET by nkviking75Bal, the anti-war demonstrations are being portrayed as a huge groundswell of public opinion against the war that the president should listen to. And yet year after year larger crowds protest against abortion, euthanasia, and now embryonic stem cell research. If the media acknowledges them at all, they are portrayed as a small but vocal minority of religious zealots whom Congress can ignore without consequence. The impact of the anti-war protestors is being inflated.
Another obvious case of the l
January 28, 2007 - 15:42 ET by Clear thinkerAnother obvious case of the liberal MSM wanting to dictate the outcome of a war.
Our military can handle the bad guys overseas, who's going to take down the bad guys here (you know...the liberal MSM) ?
You are kidding, right?
January 28, 2007 - 15:44 ET by msh1973You are kidding, right?
msh1973...If you are refering
January 28, 2007 - 15:54 ET by Clear thinkermsh1973...
If you are refering to my above comment, no I'm not kidding.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA!
balboa, Let's say that the
January 28, 2007 - 16:47 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Let's say that the difference is story size and placement is, as you say, partly (or even mostly) due to the relevance of the underlying issues (war vs abortion). Do you think the way the two marches were presented was consistent with each other?
I ask, because this is what I see. The diversity of the anti-war crowd is emphasized through out that article, where the anti-abortion crown is portrayed exclusively as church goers. The pro-abortion side is given voice in the one article (by paragraph 4) but no opposing views are given in the anti-war march article and the only mention of any protest is characterized as being specifically against Jane Fonda.
Both articles say that they can't get numbers on how many marched, but the anti-war article emphasizes the size of the crowd and how far it extends down the mall. The other article doesn't.
The anti-war marchers are "exuberant", "vociferous", the march was "peaceful". Words like "moving" and "haunting" are used. None of that for the anti-abortion folks.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe restrictions on the size of the smaller anti-abortion article prevented some of the things I mentions. Just wondering what your take on it is.
Yeah well of course the babie
January 28, 2007 - 22:06 ET by bigtimerboa...
Yeah well of course the babies getting aborted everyday with no teeny-tiny voice of their own is no big deal to the left...ever...
Someone has to speak out for them...
The leftist media has always tried to avoid the subject if possible...unless of course it the pro-killing the babies side...then we get the so called pro choice voices hence their little obscene marches.
I think the media can very well have enough time in their busy 24/7 schedule to squeeze both stories in...
Yep, good item, Tim, and by
January 28, 2007 - 21:46 ET by Christopher FotosYep, good item, Tim, and by the way the imbalance takes place online too as I noted today. The online gallery (which are available next to the stories) has 15 photos, as opposed to the eight that ran with the March for Life piece; and all 15 are of the antiwar protesters; three of the eight in the former included abortion rights supporters. And there's an extra "voices of the protest" feature online.
Christopher Fotos/
PostWatch