The Media's Annual 'Let's Downplay the Washington March for Life' Day Plays Out As Usual

Life News has the real story:

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.

Independent confirmation of the size of the crowd, plus additional chances for readers to get a perspective on the number of people present (no aerial shots, unfortunately), is at "Barbara's Public March for Life 2007 Gallery," where Barbara says:

As a former radical leftist, I attended many demonstrations in Washington, DC. Now having attended the March for Life two years in a row, I'm amazed at how under-reported the March for Life is - and all too aware of how that under-reporting contributes to the rampant stereotyping of pro-lifers as middle-aged white males. I actually saw very few of those today! What I saw were hundreds of thousands of people willing to brave the cold (DC had its first snow of the winter the night before) to affirm that a baby in the womb is not property to be destroyed, but a person that those committed to human rights must defend. It's a child, not a choice!

As has been the case for decades, those who are supposed to bring us the news couldn't and/or wouldn't accurately report what was occurring right in front of them:

  • Sam Hananel of the Associated Press only referred to "thousands of cheering abortion foes" in his report, but made sure we knew that Sam Brownback "later hosted a reception on Capitol Hill for about 200 of the activists."
  • The Washington Post said the crowd was in the "tens of thousands." The Post's devoted three of the eight pictures in its slide show to the pro-abortion side, and in the show's final slide said that DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton gave "a rousing speech in favor of women's right to choose abortion at a rally .... outside the Supreme Court." No mention was made of the size of the crowd there.
  • The AP's primary story about the march referred to "thousands of abortion foes."
  • The New York Times Sarah Abruzzese's main report (probably requires free registration) referred to "thousands of abortion opponents." The Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg (corrected on Feb. 24; originally attributed to Abruzze -- Ed.) had a snarky sidebar (probably requires free registration) that ridiculed President Bush for not addressing the crowd in person ("phoning it in"), even though previous prolife presidents (Bush 41 and Reagan) began what has come to be a tradition, and despite the fact that the logistics of presidential security in such a throng would be daunting.

For crowd size context, look at this picture from the prolife rally this previous weekend in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Chronicle reported that 20,000 attended. The marchers are compressed into a long line that is the width of two lanes of traffic, while the Washington throng pictured at the Life News link above is at least 6-8 lanes wide, and appears to extend back through many blocks.

Every year for the past 34 years, hundreds of thousands of prolife advocates have marched in Washington. In almost every year, the March for Life has been the single largest demonstration taking place in the nation's capital. And every year for the past 34 years, incontrovertible evidence that what has become the formerly Mainstream Media is incorrigibly biased against what Life at the Frontier calls "The Greatest Mass Movement of Our Time" is there for all who have eyes to see.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer is a contributing editor for NewsBusters.