« Marching with Dominicans | Main | Well, now! »
January 23, 2007
Covering the coverage
Michelle Malkin compares coverage of various DC demonstrations. Guess who's on A10 of the Post?
One of our readers sent this to the WaPo:
Very often these days you hear charges of “bias in the mainstream media”. Usually these accusations are based on the perception that a writer has injected his or her opinion into a story. However, bias can be much more subtle and yet say much more.
The Washington Post’s coverage of the 34th annual March for Life is indicative of such bias. A march of “tens of thousands” in the cold and snow yesterday only merited coverage on page A10 of your January 23rd edition? If 1,000 people marched and protested the war in Iraq I’m certain the Post would run it on A1.
Surely, “tens of thousands” of marchers in our nation’s capitol is a front page story. Your placement of this story speaks volumes of your opinion of the Right to Life cause.
Don’t be too hard on yourself though – the NY Times ran the story on A17.
Annie at After Abortion takes apart the NYTimes Mag cover story on PAS
And if you haven't yet, go look at Barbara Curtis' photos. They're all great, and give you an excellent sense of what the crowd was like. For some reason, I particularly liked this one:
It just has this great sense of moving forward....
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
NPR this morning literally gave a passing mention of the "35th" anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.
Posted by: Andy K. at Jan 23, 2007 1:36:05 PM
The Washington Post gave a quote from George Isajiw of the Catholic Medical Association. Mr. Isajiw said that an exception for endangerment of a mother's life would be no part of the right-to-life platform. Senator Brownback (R-Kansas), presidential candidate, replied, "Well said."
Am I the only one this troubles, Amy?
Posted by: Susan at Jan 23, 2007 2:22:42 PM
Circulation numbers of these once-great newspapers, along with their stock prices, have been dropping like mill-stones for good reason. Good riddance.
Posted by: Jaques at Jan 23, 2007 2:42:13 PM
Malkin needs a better irony detector. While discussing the pro-lfe marches, she makes snide comments about the "anti-war rabble." Sorry, Malkin, but a consistent Catholic would be joining both marches.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Jan 23, 2007 2:54:35 PM
I went to the March in St. Paul MN yesterday, and have posted some comments and photos at my other blog.
Posted by: Romain' Roman at Jan 23, 2007 2:55:27 PM
a consistent Catholic would be joining both marches.
Nah.
As for Susan's comment, purely politically speaking, any anti-abortion bill - passed in some theoretical world where Roe/Casey is overturned - would fail if it did not contain a health of the mother exception. But, no such exception is part of Church thinking. I admit this poses a tough dilemma for some, but it is the doctrine of our Faith.
Posted by: paul zummo at Jan 23, 2007 3:02:41 PM
Please MM-
Do NOT generate another series of posts explaining which issues permit dialogue vs. issues which require obedience to church teaching.
(Of course,in the case of the WashPo, these issues are a bit contorted. One must not question abortion rights while war is never. ever morally permissable.)
Nick
Posted by: Nick at Jan 23, 2007 3:06:59 PM
What Nick said..
Posted by: G at Jan 23, 2007 3:14:33 PM
Susan, Paul:
There is a big difference between a so-called "life of the mother" exception and a "health of the mother" exception. This issue gets confusing.
Strictly speaking, the Catholic position is that there are never circumstances making abortion morally all right, including so-called" life of the mother situations. I.e., it is never, ever morally OK to intend a direct, evil action. But that is very different from doing a good act that has an unavoidable evil consequence.
But there's more. There is no such thing as an abortion that "saves the life of the mother." Rather, what happens in rare cases is that the mother's life is saved by a procedure that unavoidably results in the death of the unborn child. And the Church's teaching is that this is permissible.
But political slogans can't express all that, so it is often simplified as: "abortion allowed to save the life of the mother." While that's fine as a line in a political platform, it's misleading morally and factually: if you ask Dr. Jack Willke, a longtime prolife leader, he'll tell you there simply aren't any circumstances where abortion is called for to, quote, "save the mother's life."
I suspect, but do not know, that Brownback's people are trying to express this idea. Another way to say it is that a ban on abortion does not apply to life-saving therapy for pregnant women.
Now, a "health of the mother" exception is very different. That comes from the Roe and Doe decisions in 1973. The Court allowed "health" -- including mental health -- as justifications for abortion through all nine months. Hence abortion on demand. So whenever anyone gets anywhere with a restriction on abortion, the pro-aborts always call for a "health of the mother" exception, which in practice guts any restriction on abortion. I don't agree that such a clause is a necessity at all, perhaps Paul misspoke.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Jan 23, 2007 3:33:06 PM
Fr. Fox:
Indeed I misspoke - I meant life of the mother. "Health of the mother" has been a very coy way of pretending to restrict abortions when it does nothing of the sort, as you mentioned.
And thank you for you clarification on the "abortion to save a mother's life" lingo. That is something I wasn't aware of.
Posted by: paul zummo at Jan 23, 2007 3:41:40 PM
This morning's Atlanta paper had a short paragraph stating that GWB had addressed the "anti-abortion march" in DC. Not a word about the large rally at the Georgia Capitol which brought out all the state's legislative leaders, including our first pro-life lieutenant governor. Might as well not have happened.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Jan 23, 2007 3:44:49 PM
The LA Times didn't have much to say about the subject either.
It's interesting that the LA paper, now apparently on the auction block with owner Chicago Tribune, has fallen all over itself in reporting of the Clinton cadidacy, but when New Mexico Gov. Bill Robertson announced, it was relegated to page A-10.
Posted by: dino at Jan 23, 2007 3:44:53 PM
Mr. Isajiw said that an exception for endangerment of a mother's life would be no part of the right-to-life platform. Senator Brownback (R-Kansas), presidential candidate, replied, "Well said."
Am I the only one this troubles, Amy?
There is a danger of misunderstanding here given different people's varying definitions of words. In the hopes of making the distinction clearer -- if "abortion" is (properly) defined as an act that has as its intention the killing of an unborn person, it is always wrong, even though the mother's life is at risk, because the purpose is not the preservation of (the mother's) life, but merely the taking of life. If, however, it is defined as the premature removal (delivery) of an unborn person, without the intention to kill such person, but only the intention to save the mother, and there is a good faith desire and attempt to save the life of the unborn as well, then it is not necessarily wrong, even if the unborn is insufficiently developed to survive. In the one case, there is an intentional killing, in the other case, there is a desire and attempt to preserve life -- both lives if possible.
For example, if a mother at eight months goes into distress and can no longer continue the pregnancy, it would be proper and appropriate to do a C-section or induce labor prematurely, with proper care given to the baby after delivery, even if the baby were to die in the process. However, it would be gravely wrong if, instead of a C-section delivery, the doctor dismembered the baby or jammed scissors in his or her skull and sucked out the contents. Both cases "save" the mother and both are technically an "aborting," i.e. stopping, of a continuation of the pregnancy, but there is a world of moral difference between the two. There is never a need to purposely kill the unborn child in order to save the mother's life.
Posted by: Bender at Jan 23, 2007 4:52:24 PM
The Boston Globe had a picture on the second page, but it was a pro-abortion person debating a pro-life person. The caption gave first mention to the pro-abortion person.
Posted by: Sr Lorraine at Jan 23, 2007 5:25:07 PM
I thought the amount of coverage of the marches provided by the National Catholic Reporter (online) was interesting.
Posted by: linasnor at Jan 23, 2007 5:29:14 PM
Sr.Lorraine:
I kind of approved of the p2 Boston Globe photo. It shows the pro-life woman, I guess college age, forcefully presenting her argument to the pro-abort woman, who looks to me like a professional flower child in her 30s.
BTW, the Globe, a revolting pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rag, is also losing readers by the thousands. God has His ways.
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Jan 23, 2007 6:11:43 PM
I spoke to my mother this evening, and mentioned that we had come back from the March for Life. She (not Catholic, not particularly prolife) said, "What March?" There was apparently no coverage in whatever news she watches or reads in LA. She was suprised to learn that a demonstration with tens of thousands of people wouldn't be covered, and she was also surprised to learn the number of prominent politicians who were courting the prolife vote. I think of my mother as typical of non-news junkies; she watches QBC (or whatever the shopping channel is), cooking channels, the Weather Channel, the Today Show, and her local news. If she is ignorant of the March, so are thousands of others... we have to find ways to reach them and move their hearts. (And yes, I work on hers as best I can -- mostly by praying.)
Posted by: scotch meg at Jan 23, 2007 7:06:47 PM
The Boston Globe had a picture on the second page, but it was a pro-abortion person debating a pro-life person. The caption gave first mention to the pro-abortion person.
I just got back this morning from the March, shepherding a dozen high school kids [altogether there were over a thousand in our group from St. Louis]. I had warned them there would be counter demonstrators, typically standing in front of the police who guard the Supreme Court. I told them to only smile, thank them for coming and tell them we would all pray for them, nothing else.
They were very disappointed when we got there to find no one from the other side. In fact, we went the whole trip, three days in DC, without seeing a single counter-protester. Where the Boston photographer found them is a mystery to me.
Posted by: lar at Jan 23, 2007 7:38:59 PM
The Washington Post’s coverage of the 34th annual March for Life is indicative of such bias. A march of “tens of thousands” in the cold and snow yesterday only merited coverage on page A10 of your January 23rd edition? If 1,000 people marched and protested the war in Iraq I’m certain the Post would run it on A1.
Nonsense. I remember the hearing the same complaints after the gay and lesbian marches in the 80's and 90's. The truth of the matter is that every single day, someone somewhere in DC is protesting something. The town is jaded.
Its not a liberal or right-wing bias, it is a bias toward conflict and action. Newsmaking events of a dramatic nature. Bunches of citizens, even in large numbers, peacefully exorcising their freedom of speech simply does not make the drama grade.
Posted by: Patrick (gryph) at Jan 23, 2007 8:24:23 PM
Bunches of citizens, even in large numbers, peacefully exorcising their freedom of speech simply does not make the drama grade.
It does make the grade when it comes to anti-war and anti-Bush protests. I think what makes the difference is the that pro-life protesters don't carry signs with curse words or haul around giant sockpuppets. They're not anarchists with pink hair and Che t-shirts.
Of course, many anti-war protesters look and dress perfectly normally too. But anti-war rallies and marches for other trendy left-wing causes always attract a sizable number of trendy, left-wing celebs (the occasional Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon) as well as colorful characters like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or Lesbian Vegan Grannies on Motorcycles Who Hope Bush Dies Tommorrow etc.
I can imagine the discussions that take place in newsrooms: "Pro-life rally? Jeez, they're not only a bunch of Jesus freaks, they not even interesting Jesus freaks. Yawn."
Posted by: Donna V. at Jan 23, 2007 8:59:33 PM
Nonsense. I remember the hearing the same complaints after the gay and lesbian marches in the 80's and 90's. The truth of the matter is that every single day, someone somewhere in DC is protesting something. The town is jaded.
The town is jaded, but the rest of your analysis is incorrect. I live in the greater DC area and read the Post every single day. Marches this large do not occur every day. This was undercovered by any consistent standard.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Jan 23, 2007 11:12:44 PM
"But anti-war rallies and marches for other trendy left-wing causes..."
Jeez, I didn't know being against the Iraq war was a "trendy left-wing cause." Ah....makes sense....that's why JP II was against the war...now there was someone who was into trendy left causes...
Posted by: Laura Gonzalez at Jan 23, 2007 11:30:30 PM
