Thursday, January 23, 2014

March for Life 2014

The 41st annual March for Life happened yesterday and, like last year, Lumberkid couldn't attend due to school. And though she's skipped school in the past, this year she's student teaching so skipping isn't an option.

 Good to see that thousands (though not the usual hundreds of thousands) braved the bitter cold this year and, hold on to your hats, the Washington Post actually showed more marcher photos than anti-marcher photos. They had admitted bias (h/t: N. O'Really) last year, so maybe, just maybe, the big lumbering liberal organization can eventually be nudged into reporting what happens in the world:

[ Post Company chairman and CEO Donald Graham]said he agreed with the criticism of the paper’s abortion reporting at that time and said the Post’s job in reporting the news is “not to take sides.” However, he added, “that’s not to say we don’t make mistakes.”

Graham handed off the question to current Post publisher Katherine Weymouth, who added: “[W]e’re far from perfect — we do make mistakes.” In a private conversation with Almasi after the conclusion of the meeting, Weymouth suggested around “90 percent” of the Post newsroom holds liberal political beliefs and “obviously their bias comes through” on occasion. “We can’t be perfect,” Weymouth reiterated. Almasi pointed out that the Post’s apparent bias against large pro-life events such as the annual March for Life is a recurring problem with the paper.

“Every year, the hundreds of thousands of people who trek to Washington in January — often in snow and rain — for the March for Life get a small story in the Metro section for their efforts. And it usually includes a photo of the handful of pro-abortion counter-protesters who show up — diluting the coverage and potentially making someone not reading the article think it was a pro-abortion event. This year, the apparent bias was compounded when a gun control rally of less than 1,000 people the next day received better coverage. And another smaller rally against the Keystone XL pipeline made the front section,” said Almasi. “People consider Congress more credible than the reporters who cover them these days, and the Washington Post is seen as the poster child for bias for this kind of reporting.”
 The Post is a newspaper, and they've admitted ignoring the news, so maybe one day they'll actually rectify the situation. (The March still isn't on the web front page, except for a link to an opinion piece by Dana (if that is his name) Milbank, who wants your laws out of his womb)

Google News has this as the first image on a search for "March for Life" though:

Google's big enough to never have to change.


kc said...

Admitting that I don't watch the 'news' - I still keep fairly well informed, I think. If there were any serious threat to making abortion illegal again, wouldn't I hear about it? So do the KAL/NOW-bots do this just for the face-time, not because they truly have to fight the battle again?

Wry Mouth said...

Weymouth gives reporting a bad name. I learned how to be objective, in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL JOURNALISM. It really isn't that hard.