The Washington Post has a funny way of covering conservative protests. Take Sunday's protest against "gay marriage," in which black churches have rallied to insist the people vote by referendum instead of letting the D.C. council dictate. The headline is "Both sides mobilize in same-sex marriage." Doesn't the reader assume that means that both sides mobilized.... yesterday? This headline would not happen in a story on a liberal protest.
Post reporter Tim Craig suggests distaste for the protesters in the first few words: "A small but noisy group of protesters, many bused in from churches," rallied Sunday. This would not happen in a story on a liberal protest. Size would almost be irrelevant. (And their transportation wouldn't be a negative.)
Craig counted "about 150 opponents of same-sex marriage" in the second paragraph. Earlier this month, when hard-left protesters rallied outside the White House to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, the Post waited 25 paragraphs to tell readers only 176 people showed up.
They put that rally on page one, not page one of Metro (where yesterday's protest landed).
Craig added: "Sunday's protesters chanted, 'Let the people vote!' but many participants live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs." This did not happen when the Post glorified illegal aliens protesting. Their illegal status was irrelevant.
