Newsweek wrong x2: DC March for Life was not shorter or older

I previously discussed the January 22 Newsweek blog post by Krista Gesaman with this wildly inaccurate title and premise...

Newsweek, March for Life, abortion.png

Gesaman is getting hammered in the comments section for that, but she made another false statement...

But there will be one major difference with the demonstration route this year - it's shorter.

"The organizers are getting older, and it's more difficult for them to walk a long distance," says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, DC, police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says....

I contacted Peter Shinn of Pro-Life Unity, who actually draws the March for Life map every year.

Peter said this was at least the 4th year pro-lifers have marched the same route, and the pre-March rally has moved even further away - by 3 blocks.

So while it is conceivable some pro-lifers might have taken a shortcut to Constitution Ave. from 4th St. for the 2007 March, they have lost that option. Bottom line, Stanley Radzilowski, whoever he is, was both factually and geriatrically incorrect, and a gullible Gesaman spouted his nonsense without doing a simple map check.

Here are the maps. Click to enlarge...

Slide1.PNG

Slide2.PNG


Comments:


What a hoot. Since Roe v Wade PLs have always been stereotyped as doddering old spinsters pushing 200 years old. Or else we were "hordes of parochial (read Catholic) school children".
I can't remember when we were ever portrayed as anything else.

Posted by: Mary at January 24, 2010 6:45 PM


The media malpractice is stunning. Agenda, much?

Anyway, I remember when the rally used to be near the Washington Monument and the walk up Constitution Avenue began from there. I forget the year it changed (6 yrs ago?) and I always wondered why. I assumed it was permit issues so that less of DC was 'inconvenienced' - attempt by the city to minimize the impact (logistics and message) on the city. Or I thought it might be security issues. It seemed crowded then with similar crowd numbers, but not as busting at the seams crowded as it is now with less space. It's still a great day to be a witness.

Posted by: I love the March for Life at January 24, 2010 7:37 PM


I'm telling you, Jill, you have GOT to submit these MSM critiques to Big Journalism. Breitbart would have a field day. Break it down to Part I, Part II, etc.

Posted by: carder at January 24, 2010 7:59 PM


Ok, Carder, I just made the pitch to Andrew Breitbart. Thanks for the encouragement!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at January 24, 2010 9:21 PM


Why do the #'s, age or sex even matter? Back in the days of Noah, there were only 8 righteous, God-fearing/obeying individuals out of a population of many, and Noah was pretty old.

Honestly, why do what others say/write matter so much?

Posted by: Marie at January 24, 2010 9:25 PM


Hi Jill,

While you're here, did you forward that e-mail to Bethany? If not, could you send me her e-mail. Thanks

Posted by: Mary at January 24, 2010 10:08 PM


Hi Marie,

Since I can remember the PAs have long attempted to portray PL people as doddering on the edge of 200y/o, ugly, having at least a dozen children, religious fanatics, men who have no clue what it is to be pregnant. Of course its fine when men support abortion, since men who support abortion are better able to comprehend what it is like to be pregnant with an unwanted baby than is a man who opposes abortion.

Its just the same ongoing stereotyping.

Posted by: Mary at January 24, 2010 10:15 PM


oh my goodness, this is TOO funny!
We're getting older and can't walk as far! haha (in your dreams!)

yes, didn't you just see all those old geezers with their walkers and canes at the March for Life.
Not a young face to be found.
Bet there were lot's of lost dentures along the route too.
And THAT'S why the print on the signs was so large! ;)
BTW, did anyone see the vendors selling adult diapers along the march route.....

Posted by: angel at January 25, 2010 7:19 AM


Having attended both coordination meetings with all of the police jurisdictions involved, I do not know who Stanley Radzilowski is, and I can tell you that "the organizers are getting older, and it's more difficult for them to walk a long distance" was never part of the discussion.

Posted by: Bob at January 25, 2010 8:31 AM


Hey Mary, Bethany's email address is bethany@jillstanek.com. Thanks!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at January 25, 2010 8:40 AM


Did anybody notice that in some articles we are now called "Pro-life" instead of the usual"Anti-Choice" protesters?

Posted by: RSD at January 25, 2010 9:50 AM


Hi Jill,

Thanks so much. Even I should be able to remember that for future reference! :)

Posted by: Mary at January 25, 2010 9:56 AM


Compared to the 2009 March for Life, in 2010 I noticed a growth in attendance of college and high school students ALL AROUND! They are the ones making all the noise and it was awesome. I also noticed a larger attendance by blacks and Hispanics this year, compared to 2009. I have only attended these two times...I am age 47 and I definitely felt like one of the older ones. :)

Posted by: Janet at January 25, 2010 10:08 AM


You commenters are awesome! It looks like we will need to depend on the comments and blogs to get our real news. Krista, I DEMAND you post an apology for your blatantly ignorant report and you follow-up with an accurate account of the day. I honestly don't think you have what it takes to be a reporter.

Posted by: Susan at January 25, 2010 10:16 AM


Mary, the March is supposedly all white, too. Don't forget that prolifers are all "sexist, racist, anti-gay" as well.

Whatever . . .

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 25, 2010 11:12 AM


Hi Susan,

Don't worry about Krista's article...her readership will go down the same way the "lamestream" media's viewership did everytime they spin things "their" way.

She can spin the March anyway she wants, but in the end, TRUTH always prevail.


*..am just really, really wondering...Whatever happened to 'objective journalism'?

Posted by: RSD at January 25, 2010 11:13 AM


Hi Phillymiss,

Great points, thank you.

Speaking of racist, I about died with shock and laughter when someone on MSNBC, the bastion of liberal enlightenment, suggested that "tea party" demonstration participants should have put the black participants in front of the cameras. Uh, you enlightened souls, we used to call that tokenism, you know, like... why some of my best friends are colored, or see I do hire colored people, there's one right at the front desk for all to see. Give me a fricking break.

Note to liberals. Conservatives see people of all races, religions, and ethnicities and see Americans. You look at Americans and see races, religions, and ethnicities.

Posted by: Mary at January 25, 2010 11:54 AM


Plus there were people from MANY countries.

While I manned the microphone at the end of the march asking where people where from, I spoke to folks in eight different languages:
English; Spanish; Polish; Filipino; Korean; Hebrew; Italian; and, French.

(While I'm not fluent in all of them, I can at least say things like "Hello" and "Thank you.")

Posted by: Bob at January 25, 2010 1:01 PM


Hi Jill
FWIW, she has posted a rather weak defense: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/25/reaction-to-the-blogosphere-about-roe-v-wade-article.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Posted by: JenB at January 25, 2010 1:49 PM


JenB your link is awesome.
Here is the response to the right-wing blogosphere reaction she posted:
There has been quite a storm in the conservative blogosphere over my look-ahead post on the Roe v. Wade anniversary rallies from Friday morning. The bloggers seem to think that I intentionally, or ignorantly, conflated pro-choice young feminists, who I predicted would come out in smaller numbers than their older counterparts, with young pro-life activists. In fact, my intention, which I acknowledge should have been articulated more clearly, was to note that left-leaning young women who have grown up since Roe v. Wade tend to be less viscerally motivated by the need to preserve Roe. Pro-life young women, on the other hand, have grown up objecting to the status quo on abortion law, and are more likely to be politically active on the subject, as my quote from Olivia Gans demonstrates.

Posted by: angel at January 26, 2010 6:32 AM


except Krista's logic is faulty.

my experience is those left-leaning proaborts have grown up witnessing the demonstrations by their prolife counterparts.
it's not like they've lived in a vacuum....

Posted by: angel at January 26, 2010 6:35 AM


"...my look-ahead post..."

I love her euphemism for lying.

Posted by: xalisae at January 26, 2010 7:41 AM


yeah exactly xalisae!

Posted by: angel at January 26, 2010 9:26 AM