MSM's (mis)coverage (or lack thereof) of the March for Life 2010

UPDATE, 1/24, 6:50a: Newsbusters' Matthew Balan has written a great post, "Newsweek could have just asked colleagues at WaPo about young pro-life women (with photo essay)."

BTW, the Newsweek author, Krista Gesaman, is getting hammered in the comments section, including one from me.

UPDATE, 1/23, 4:23p: Jack Cashill has a good piece on MSM's biased coverage of the March at the American Thinker.

UPDATE, 1/23, 3:41p: Steve linked to a particularly specious Newsweek blog post about the March for Life entitled:

Newsweek, March for Life, abortion.png

What garbage! Note the author's post was published at 7:15a, hours before the March actually began. The contents are as bad as the title...

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, and droves of women are prepared to face rainy weather to support their positions during the annual Washington, DC, demonstrations. 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 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.

So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they're at home. "Young women are still concerned about these issues, but they're not trained to go out and protest," says Kristy Maddux, assistant professor at the University of MD, who specializes in historical feminism....

The author has obviously never attended a March, because she'd then know she has her premise and her story exactly backward. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of busloads of young people from churches, high schools, and colleges across the country descend on DC for the annual March. What shoddy, biased, utterly false reporting.

UPDATE, 1/23, 3:05p: 1-22 Marcher has linked to 2 more good person-on-the-street March videos, here and here.

UPDATE, 1/23, 2:55p: Steve Greydanus at National Catholic Register has a great recap of MSM (lack of or mis-) coverage of the March.

UPDATE, 1/23, 12:05p: Culture and Media Institute reports a CNN reporter was not even sure who was doing the protesting yesterday:

Rick Sanchez, March for Life, abortion.png

Near the end of the 3p ET hour of CNN's Rick's List on Friday, host Rick Sanchez couldn't seem to figure out who was protesting at the March for Life in Washington D.C.: "It's the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade case....both sides being represented today, but it does appear to me, as I look at these signs that - which side is represented the most....Do we know?"...

As Rick puzzled over which side was more represented at the protest, numerous pro-life signs could be clearly seen on screen.

Returning from the commercial break, Sanchez clarified, but still seemed completely unfamiliar with the annual event: "As far as we can tell, following this protest on this day, the bulk of the protesters that we have seen here - that doesn't mean there aren't others, because we haven't gone out and counted them individually - seem to be anti-abortion activists. We've seen more pro-life signs than we have the others."

1/23, 11:21a: Interesting that it was Russia Today of all things that produced the best news story I could find on the 2010 March for Life...

Crowd estimates ranged from 250k to 300k - if the report came from friendly media. MSM otherwise reported it as "tens of thousands," or worse, just "thousands-strong," as a particularly odorous Scripps piece reported.

Its 3-paragraph lead was about a counter-demonstration of 60 pro-aborts. And the rest of the Scripps article was not much better, focusing almost entirely on what the leaders of the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority Foundation, and Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice thought about abortion. Whatever. Expected.

CNN totally misrepresented the March by starting its coverage with, "Abortion rights supporters and opponents hit the streets of the nation's capital Friday to mark the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade...."

Of course, it wasn't like that at all. CNN should fairly have reported, ".0001% Abortion rights supporters and 99.9999% opponents hit the streets...."

NPR did the same, giving equal billing to pro-aborts in its headline about the March and seriously underplaying - not even attempting to mention - the volume of pro-lifers compared to the infinitesimal presence of pro-aborts...

NPR, March for Life, abortion.png

But never fear, citizen journalism is here. If you search "March for Life" at YouTube you'll find lots of homemade pro-life videos that give little snippets of the real sense of this enormous and inspiring event, like these...

Feel free to quote other news reports in the comments section.


Comments:

Man, the abortionists, I mean the media, are something else, aren't they?

I watched Katie last night and I did not see any mention of the March at all. I did not watch every single minute so I may have missed it if it was a short segment.

Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2010 12:02 PM


Hi Joe! Are you the commenter Joe I met in DC?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at January 23, 2010 12:06 PM


Of course my liberal, Obama-adoring sister-in-law is a producer for headline news at CNN. She is actually pro-life (ironic, isn't it? and she supports the most pro-abortion president ever). She likes to think CNN is the bastion of journalistic integrity. She absolutely hates that I watch Fox but how can I watch CNN with purposefully misleading "news reports" like this? CNN and MSM are not about fair news reporting but about liberal indoctrination.

Posted by: Sydney M at January 23, 2010 12:16 PM


They look nervous...like...as if they report something that they think their viewers or bosses or someone won't like, they'll get in serious trouble...

Posted by: xalisae at January 23, 2010 12:17 PM


Jill:

Yes, we ran into each other at the American Life League Personhood Conference on Jan. 21 and at the Blogs4Life Conference at the Family Research Council on the morning of Jan. 22 before the March.

By the way, great job of emceeing at both Personhood and Blogs.

Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2010 12:31 PM


Just saw this moving video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spSx9j4u1vw

Posted by: 1-22 Marcher at January 23, 2010 12:36 PM


Sydney M:

I know the feeling. My mother thinks Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. She thinks he has "saved" the economy, if you can believe that!

She lives in Delaware and really digs Joe Biden (and she thinks I'm "crazy"!).

Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2010 12:41 PM


I live near Philly, 20 minutes from Delaware and Biden bought a puppy from some lady near me and it was FRONT PAGE NEWS in the paper. I guess its neat the VP bought a dog from our area but still, the tears of joy that flowed...you'd think God himself had appeared to us!

I still don't get the people who say they are against abortion yet love Obama. My sis-in-law has the attitude that though she personally is against abortion she still votes Democrat because its not "her" issue.

Posted by: Sydney M at January 23, 2010 12:50 PM


This one is my favorite! Made me chuckle and made me grateful for their simple clarity and for their bold witness.

"I'm smiling because my mom chose life!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3VTBRBsNDw

Posted by: 1-22 Marcher at January 23, 2010 1:08 PM


Sydney,

Lots of liberals agree with many things that Obama does but disagree about abortion. I would be one of them. So I mean, when adding up all of the issues, we think that he tries to help the world even if we don't always get the abortion angle. I am pleased that, unlike many pro-choicers, he does not associate abortion with positive things and acknowledges that it is wrong. He thinks that it should be legal, but he'll reduce abortion through healthcare.

Obviously, if you're a conservative, you'll disagree, but that's sort of the liberal take on it.

This liberal things is complicated, however. The more I think about philosophy, the less that I want to even think about politics. I'm still a liberal, but I don't know that I want to take sides anymore. But I do like Obama.

I understand that your opinion is different, however, and that you feel just as strongly about your opinion as I do mine. :)

Posted by: Vannah at January 23, 2010 1:14 PM


*thing

Sorry. Typo. ^o^

Posted by: Vannah at January 23, 2010 1:16 PM


Jill, I did some live blogging at NCRegister.com on the March, and cited this post in a final update on MSM coverage. Cheers.

Posted by: SDG at January 23, 2010 1:50 PM


I just returned to St. Louis from participating in the march for life for the first time. I am a relative new-comer to this movement, and I was astounded at the size of the pro-life crowd and the positive energy. The only thing I can compare it to was seeing Pope John Paul II on his visit to St. Louis times 100.

I expected there to be some show of resistance to the pro-lifers. To my complete surprise, I only saw a handful of pro-abortion signs right in front of the supreme court at the very end of the march (around 5:30pm) and there were not more than two dozen people in their camp.

To even mention them at all in the news coverage would be like mentioning the number of people wearing prosthetic legs at the super-bowl: totally irrelevant.

To my further surprise, this is one of the only websites I've come up with on google that even mentioned crowd size estimates. This is the first time I've ever encountered this blog. I am no estimator of crowd size, but I can assure you that I've never been involved in anything even close to the scale of that event. Out of curiosity, I wanted to know whether it was a million people or only 300,000.

It's very bizarre to have been at an event so monumental and iconic (filling almost the ENTIRE National mall as we emptied out onto Constitution Avenue to swarm the Supreme Court building) only to return to the internet and find almost nothing about it... what's the deal?

Does anyone know of any reliable news estimates? What about aerial photos? I'd love to see those.

Posted by: david kraus at January 23, 2010 1:51 PM


>^..^

Posted by: Pamela at January 23, 2010 1:51 PM


American Power tracked-back with, 'The March for Life 2010'.

Posted by: Americanecon at January 23, 2010 2:09 PM


Maybe some pro-life people vote Democrat because... guess what? There are other issues facing this country.

Posted by: Ryan N at January 23, 2010 2:43 PM


Whoever came up with that Sarah Palin sign, I want to shake their hand.

Trig as Little Bear. So, so true.

Given that Russia is facing its own population winter, it makes all the sense in the world that they give the March decent coverage.

Posted by: carder at January 23, 2010 2:59 PM


Vannah,

Read President Obama's statement from yesterday.

I don't see him exactly ackowledging that it's wrong. Doing so would be more than Cecile Richards could bear.

******************************
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 22, 2010 Statement by the President on the 37th Anniversary of Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade

Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights.

I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.

Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams

Posted by: carder at January 23, 2010 3:06 PM


Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams

Posted by: carder at January 23, 2010 3:06 PM

Even pregnant women!!!

Posted by: Janet at January 23, 2010 4:37 PM


I support a woman's right to be born.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 23, 2010 5:05 PM


I've got some photos of the events on my blog in case anyone is interested. Also have a link to 159 other photos on Flickr.

Also, I must say that I have never seen so many spirited young women at an event in my entire life.

And I don't really know how many pro-lifers were there, as there were too many to count. But I would estimate the pro-abortionists at around 15 or so.

http://stblogustine.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-first-march-for-life-in-washington-d.html

Posted by: Matt at January 23, 2010 5:06 PM


I support the rights of ALL males AND females to be born, no matter what their mothers may say.

Posted by: Janet at January 23, 2010 5:16 PM


"I support the rights of ALL males AND females to be born, no matter what their mothers may say"

And that means that those who carry the fetuses have NO right to determine what is best for their bodies and their lives. Oh, Snap!!!! Women as happy incubators!!! And they'll all live happily ever after. Gotta love forced "birthing" - big daddy patriarchy at its best! You'll have that baby, or else. LOL.

Posted by: Artemis at January 23, 2010 6:07 PM


Who missing from the Roe v Wade Anniversary demonstration?

Approximately 30 million females from the age of a newborn infant to adult women as old as 36 years and approximately 20 million males in the same age range.

Approximatley 50 million total.

That is who is missing.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 23, 2010 6:32 PM


Posted by: Artemis at January 23, 2010 6:07 PM

"Gotta love forced "birthing" - big daddy patriarchy at its best! You'll have that baby, or else." [choose to murder them while they are still inutero.]

-----------------------------------------------------

Artheemiserable,

It cannot have escaped your attention that most of the people who post here are females.

You must believe their knuckledraggin neanderthal misogynistic husband, father, or pastor are standing over them with a truncheon threatening to bludgeon them to death if they do not submit to their demands.

Or you believe that most women are too stupid to know they are being controlled by men.

You sure don't think very highly of women.

You better do a level one self diagnostic I do believe you have a deep seated hatred of women.

You may be a latent chauvinist pig with female plumbing.

You don't get out much do you?

You must just stay at home with your nose in 'womens studies' books or perusing the pablum one finds on feminista blogs.

Or maybe you are so egocentric that you actually believe that the overwhelming majority of women actually agree with you.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 23, 2010 6:52 PM


Wow!! Pro-choicers are deliberately putting blinders on and keeping their head in the sand muttering the same mantras to themselves and refusing to face reality. When the truth hits them in their behind they wonder why and how!


Posted by: chantal at January 23, 2010 7:20 PM


I don't like abortionist Pigs! "Do not cast parils before swine," Thats in the bible! If an abortionist repents, and turns from his ways, then he is know longer a Pig, however, if he refueses, then I concitter him an abortionist pig! RJ

Posted by: RJ Sandefur at January 23, 2010 7:23 PM


Yes, Artemis. That's why we all crusade so zealously to ban tubal ligations and vasectomies...oh...wait a minute...we don't...

BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTROLLING WOMEN'S BODIES OR LIVES. THIS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS FROM A HORRIBLE UNJUST DEATH AT THE HANDS OF A HIRED KILLER.

Women who are mothers are supposed to protect their children, not seek to have them killed. Doctors are supposed to heal people, not kill them. If these two parties did what they were supposed to do, abortion wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't need a law protecting the most vulnerable segment of humanity.

Posted by: xalisae at January 23, 2010 8:08 PM


Matt,
Did you ask Carl of Fox why he wasn't covering the March for Life? Or did they and I didn't catch it?

Posted by: carder at January 23, 2010 8:51 PM


Some of the media coverage is appalling.

However, these complaints are stale and happen *every year*.

What are leaders in the pro-life movement doing to build contacts, working relationships and even friendships with MSM reporters? If the media isn't covering you right, sometimes it's your own fault for not using the system right.

It's like pro-life groups are just dispatching a press release to busy newsrooms and expecting reporters to do the work their own communications offices should be doing.

Pro-lifers donate to support our movement's leaders. If we're still complaining about media coverage every year, they're not succeeding at their jobs.

Posted by: Kevin J Jones at January 23, 2010 9:09 PM


For those interested, I've been also covering the March at my blog and researching news sources, and will also link to Jill's updates.

Posted by: Rachael C. at January 23, 2010 9:32 PM


Ah, I knew that the Evil Woman Hater utterance would dribble out of someone's mouth.

Evil! Muahahaha!

Ah, Artemis, join us in world domination. We could use shrewd intellect like yours in our clearly-evil intentions. We would fumble around without you. Do consider the dark side. *cackle*

Posted by: Vannah at January 23, 2010 11:12 PM


X--I personally like to carry signs of bloody fallopian tubes and severed testes, don't you? I often crusade to try and control other women's bodies! Thats what its all about! Ha ha ha. I just can't wait to dictate to Enigma, and Artemis, and Danielle, and Nerd and all the others what to do with their bodies. Someday I hope to tell them what to wear and what color lipstick to choose! HA HA HA HA.

pro-choicers can't win the debate because they can't deny the humanity of the unborn, so they try to use smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue of what the debate is. The debate is, is the unborn a human being or not? If not, why not? If the unborn were not a human being WHO WOULD CARE if a woman chose to have an abortion?

I personally don't like breast implants or see their purpose. I myself would never get them, but I don't see anything wrong if another woman CHOOSES to get implants. You don't find me on a anti-breast implant website adding comments about how evil breast implants are. So the pro-choicers who say "Well if you don't like abortion then don't have one" are missing the point entirely. Its not about if I would like one or not, its about the fact that abortion destroys a unique unborn human person.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 23, 2010 11:29 PM


MSM -> GO STRAIGHT TO HELL.

Posted by: Jasper at January 24, 2010 7:47 AM


Jill,

What a great time in DC! You did a fantastic job emceeing the Pro-Life Blog Awards and FRC Blogs for Life. You also seemed to be everywhere at once. (THAT'S A CLUE FOR ALL OF YOU MSM COCONUTS WHO DIDN'T SEE THE YOUNG WOMEN AT THE MARCH!)

Your post indicates why the newspapers and magazines are a dying industry and why we in the new media are booming:

Readers are not mindless cultic disciples. They abhor being manipulated by omissions, distortions and (e.g. no young women present at the March) outright lies. When people have to pay for the privilege of being lied to, they sit on their wallets.

So, I hope the MSM continue this campaign of perfidious lies.

I hope they expand and deepen it, as it will accelerate their demise.

We're growing. They're shrinking.

In Brooklyn NY, we call that a clue!

God Bless you Jill for the great work you do. It was inspirational watching you in action.

Gerry

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 24, 2010 8:30 AM


Jill,

A further thought.

A moral theology professor always said:

"All evil begins with a lie. To identify the lie is to unmask the evil."

If we listen to the pro-abort MSM, it's easy to decipher the truth and read their play book. Just envision the polar opposite of their statements and you have the truth.

The claim that the pro-life movement is a dying, aging group is belied by the video from the event. The March GROWS every year. Estimates are three hundred thousand for this year with HALF being UNDER THE AGE OF 25!!

The dying group of activists are the pro-abort coconuts in the MSM and their allies. Nobody is buying their papers anymore. Fox News has more viewers than all other news outlets on cable COMBINED.

It's over for the MSM. People have alternative media, and that's why we're winning.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 24, 2010 8:40 AM


Krista Gesaman asked, "Who's missing in the 'Roe vs. Wade' anniversary demonstrations?" It was the headline for her Newsweek article.

The Daizie (see his comment on January 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM) replied, "You truly see no irony in the headline? Roughly 52 million people are 'missing.'"

Posted by: Jon at January 24, 2010 9:32 AM


Carder,

No I didn't. Guess I was too star-struck to grab him by his tie, elevate his body, and hold his feet to the fire.

But I did see a Fox News truck with a big dish on top among some others near 7th and The Mall.

Didn't see Fox News either, since I was out all day. Sorry.

Posted by: Matt at January 24, 2010 12:54 PM


The Fox News truck was parked right down at the rally on the mall, so I assume they were covering the event, but I was too busy marching to watch.

Posted by: Marilyn H at January 24, 2010 8:32 PM


False and politicized "news" reporting is morally reprehensible.

Posted by: Laurie at January 26, 2010 9:55 AM