What Media Bias? Part 83 By Mark Noonan
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
On January 22, 2007, tens of thousands of people converged on Washington, DC, in order to make their voices heard on an issue of great importance to the future of America.
On January 27, 2007, tens of thousands of people converged on Washington, DC, in order to make their voices heard on an issue of great importance to the future of America.
The January 22nd demonstration was the March for Life demonstration – a broad coalition of pro-life groups gathering from around the country. It got this headline, on page A-10 of the Washington Post:
Abortion Foes to Renew Efforts
The January 27th demonstration was the anti-war demonsration – a straight-jacketed group of leftwing group-thinkers who came to DC to secure America’s defeat in the War on Terrorism. It got this headline, on page A-1, above the fold:
Does the pro-life movement, by headline, even sound like it was a demonstration? Does headline for the anti-war demonstration give any indication of the kook-fest nature of the event?
Why did one get relegated to the back pages even though it was a demonstration at least as large as the other? Because the MSM is contemptuous of the pro-life movement, but is slavishly devoted to the so-called “anti-war” movement. This is what me mean by media bias – not so much the outright lies which appear in the MSM from time to time, but the manner in which left and right are covered. Leftwingers are always covered as people who care and who want what is best, rightwingers are always covered as somehow sinister, or at least misguided. Leftwingers rate front page, laudetory coverage, rightwingers rate back page, derogatory coverage. Leftwingers always get their best spokesmen front and center, when the MSM covers rightwingers, they try to find the worst possible person to use as an exemplar of all right wingers. And on and on it goes, just like that.
This content was used with the permission of Blogs for Bush.
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
