One of the most dramatic contrasts in media bias is shown in coverage of protests. The Washington Post published a gushy article on the "Women's March" in D.C. on the top of the front page of the Metro section on Sunday. But on the front page, Post reporters Gregory Schneider and Laura Vozzella threw a savage lede at Monday's planned gun-rights protest in Richmond:
RICHMOND —The convoys and militias are coming, if social media posts are to be believed, headed to Virginia's capital to take a stand for gun rights — or, in the words of some, to fan the flames of a civil war.
This is a sleazy way for the Post to editorialize, just adding "in the words of some" as if it isn't the Post viewpoint. Their reporters fixate on fringy militia types to represent the Second Amendment movement. The whole echo of the article is about violent, menacing fanaticism.The headline was "Richmond braces for gun rights assembly: Official step up security as thousands expected to descend on Va. capital." Descend? Like flying monkeys from The Wizard of Oz?
This is not what they did for the Pussy Hat protests on Saturday. No one "braced" for that. The headline was "Election year brings feeling of hope at Women's March." Inside was another sugary header: "United by a new hope, thousands brave weather for march."
Reporters Marissa Lang and Samantha Schneider hailed the marching feminists for braving the cold freezing rain -- and couldn't find an ideological label. "Women across the country sent a final rebuke to President Trump before the 2020 presidential election....But many women said this year’s march took on a new tone. Instead of feeling angry, fearful or devastated by Trump’s ascent to the presidency, demonstrators said they felt something new: hope."
Oh, the F-word surfaced, but that was it. The "annual feminist demonstration" had "burst into national consciousness" (translation: drew tons of liberal media hype) in 2017, and "it inspired millions to take to the streets in Washington and across the globe." There were "women's rights activists" in attendance.
There were no extremists? The blatant anti-Semitism of Women's March leaders surfaced briefly....in paragraph 40.
The Post also delayed until the end these alleged representatives for All Women chanting that Trump was a rapist.
Activists said one of the march’s most powerful moments came outside the White House, as Chilean feminist collective Las Tesis led a performance of “Un Violador en Tu Camino” (“A Rapist in Your Path”), a feminist protest anthem that excoriates patriarchal rule, rape culture and violence against women.
The last paragraph reported:
Outside the Trump International Hotel, marchers broke into song and dance, beating drums and clapping hands to the beat of the Chilean protest chant...The crowd bust into cheers, women pointing at Trump’s gold-plated name as they shouted together, “The rapist is you!”
Isn't "rapist" more vicious than "liberal hack," Washington Posties?
A rudimentary knowledge of Spanish (like mine) can show the "powerful" Chilean chant clearly meant to smear Trump as the rapist in the feminist path:
This moment at the #WomensMarch in #DC was described by many as one of its most powerful: Women singing and dancing a feminist anthem together in English and Spanish — one that calls out rape culture, the patriarchy and violence against women — right in front of the White House. https://t.co/ARfXTKKCwr— Marissa J. Lang (@Marissa_Jae) January 18, 2020