And now, the skewed news

Media grossly underplayed massive pro-life rally in Washington

  • Follow Editorials

“We can never please this crowd.”

– Michel du Cille, Washington Post director of photography, talking about pro-lifers after their protest in Washington

Du Cille may be right. Then again, accuracy, fairness and a lack of an agenda would be a good start to pleasing just about anybody.

The fact is, even The Washington Post’s ombudsman – a liaison to readers – admits the newspaper presented a vastly skewed picture of reality in its coverage of a massive pro-life rally coinciding with the recent Roe v. Wade anniversary.

Ombudsman Patrick Pexton wrote that photos giving proper perspective – that the rally was much bigger than a small counter-protest, as big as 50,000 – “didn’t find their way into the main Web photo gallery on the march. And I think this is where The Post fell down in its coverage of the march this year.”

Post Local Editor Vernon Loeb also acknowledged, “In retrospect I wish we had given readers a better sense of the overall magnitude of the march ...”

But, of course, du Cille was unbowed.

It’s nice someone admitted the coverage was skewed. And it’s not like it was because of a lack of space: In the paper product, space is a huge constraint, and a more animated photograph might make it into the paper than, say, a wide-angle crowd shot. But there was plenty of room on the website for photos showing the magnitude of the protest.

You can forgive pro-lifers for wondering if the slight was intentional. Neither The New York Times print edition, nor any of the major broadcast networks, covered the massive march – although in the Times’ “Happenings in Washington” column that day, the paper took notice of the Boston Bruins visiting the White House.

If Occupy Wall Street protesters were as ignored as 50,000 pro-lifers, you might trip over them.

Comments (33) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
specsta
6505
Points
specsta 02/03/12 - 01:04 am
0
0
And where did you guys on the

And where did you guys on the editorial board get your 50,000 number from? More magical math at work.

The Post article by the ombudsman strictly says that the Post does not estimate crowd sizes. The only number that was listed was 17,000, an estimate determined from the crowd of young Catholics at the Verizon Center and D.C. Armory who participated in the march.

In fact, Washington Post Local editor said "it was far larger than 17,000.” However, "far larger" does not equal 50,000.

Now, who is reporting skewed news? It seems like the Chronicle has thrown their hat in that ring, with the hopes that no one would fact check them.

Actually, I would rather see more coverage of the Occupy Wall Street folks - you know, those people that are actually trying to help the people that have already been born. What kind of world do we live in when folks care more about a mass of cells and zygotes, more than the person who's hungry and homeless right in front of their face? I don't like the idea of abortion, but priorities are completely off-balance here.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 02/03/12 - 05:06 am
0
0
"It was evenhanded, unbiased

"It was evenhanded, unbiased and informative — exactly what Post coverage of this difficult issue should be." Patrick B. Pexton. The editors might want to try reading the entire article. That is, if they read any of it. I did notice the vast majority of the protesters appeared to be teenagers. I seem to recall the AC referring to this as "brainwashing" when children were at rallies the AC didn't agree with. Skewed news indeed.

carcraft
25885
Points
carcraft 02/03/12 - 11:12 am
0
0
OR maybe it is the fact that

OR maybe it is the fact that most people understand that sticking a needle in the head of a baby about to be born and sucking it's brains out is a little barbaric. Young people may understand that leaving a baby born alive to die after a botched abortion is also barbaric. In the words of Obama " Isn't that the purpose of abortion" when Obama was defending a bill that he helped pass that REQUIRED the baby be left to die!

robaroo
750
Points
robaroo 02/03/12 - 08:02 am
0
0
Just about all news is skewed

Just about all news is skewed to some degree. Some of it is more skewed than others.

Does anybody think Rupert Murdock's "fair and balanced" coverage favors the Democrat's point of view as often as it favors the Republican point of view? Most people realize that Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" puts a hard Republican spin on the day's events.

DuhJudge
206
Points
DuhJudge 02/03/12 - 08:48 am
0
0
Just became a granddaddy. Had

Just became a granddaddy. Had not held one in 25 years, but that mass of cells and zygotes puts a big smile on my face. How can anybody excuse an industry that kills babies? It is the same industry that feeds hungry people, its called the government. What a strange bi-polar world we live in. Some one needs to take a pill. Oh.

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 02/03/12 - 09:07 am
0
0
Just like a war where you

Just like a war where you dehumanize or demonize the enemy so it makes it easier to kill, the same is true of some reproductive freedom proponents. Abortion should be a legal procedure that physicians have available, but with todays numerous methods of birth control abortion should be available just little availed. It is somewhat a reflection of how violent and draconian our society has become when abortion is now looked at as a form of birth control (just how ignorant or sorry can you be when you're having your third abortion). When it comes to medical issues morality often becomes a thorny issue-is it more moral to let a brain dead person die or keep them alive for years mechanically or more moral to let a bad mom give birth to a child with alchohol or crack related problems . Christians should take another strategy of trying to change hearts rather than trying to change the law. If peoples heart change and people take personal responsibility there will likely be different outcomes.

allhans
23651
Points
allhans 02/03/12 - 09:49 am
0
0
Not too far off in the future

Not too far off in the future (if this continues) your life could be the life that is determined useless.

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 02/03/12 - 12:41 pm
0
0
What's great is you can have

What's great is you can have a KKK rally and Black Panthers rally on the same day, time and place. Long live freedom-however ugly and disgusting it can be at times.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 02/03/12 - 01:13 pm
0
0
Care to provide the source of

Care to provide the source of the above Obama quote?

faithson
5158
Points
faithson 02/03/12 - 01:38 pm
0
0
judge; congrats, know the

judge; congrats, know the feeling well, love them youngun's. But on the other hand there are circumstances out there where the 'gift' of life is not, nor will be appreciated by their human creators. It is my opinion that the decision to bring a life into the world is intrinsically the women's and men should stay out of the fray. Women, amoungst themselves should be the arbitrators of a policy THEY come up with. Men should leave their 'moral righteousness' at the front door and leave the women to decide.

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 02/03/12 - 01:44 pm
0
0
Here is a pretty good

Here is a pretty good synopsis of Obama playing the lie and dodge:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 02/03/12 - 02:12 pm
0
0
faithson, Until a human

faithson, Until a human female can undergo parthenogenesis then the man should have a say. She can't get pregnant without a sperm donor.

Cdr4500
20
Points
Cdr4500 02/03/12 - 02:38 pm
0
0
FACT: If abortion, were again
Unpublished

FACT: If abortion, were again made illegal in any or all of the United States, women in the middle and upper classes would continue to travel to places where they can safely end their pregnancies. Thus the impact on all of this political jousting and millions of wasted dollars would be essentially zero.

Legal changes would really only affect the poor who would be unable to secure safe, affordable medical care. (These are the same people - Obama's "Food Stamp" folks whose government benefits are also the targets of these same "every life is precious" conservatives). Does anyone but me see the hypocrisy here?

Oh, and by the way, poor women who still wish to terminate their unwanted pregnancies in a post Roe v. Wade world will wind up trying to end them in dangerous back alley clinics or by trying unconventional means by themselves, jeopardizing both the life of the mother as well as the fetus. How is that world more pro-life?

So please tell me, what are our so-called pro-life folks doing NOW to reduce the number of abortions? Where is the massive campaign to offer good homes to every unwanted child in America? To make sure everyone has access to safe and decent birth control? If they really want to end abortions so badly, they should be focused on the latter.

faithson
5158
Points
faithson 02/03/12 - 03:40 pm
0
0
Biz; you missed the point...

Biz; you missed the point... This is a WOMEN'S issue, period. Let them work it out. Has nothing to do with biology.

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 03:47 pm
0
0
The murder of innocent,

The murder of innocent, unborn children is not just a "women's issue," it a societal issue. It's an issue of morality and legality. It's a societal issue.

We have, via a (divided) Supreme Court decision, legalized infanticide. Some deny it, but science agrees life begins at conception and we all know it intuitively anyway, even without science.

God is watching, and so are the children who are fortunate enough to have mothers willing to put up with the inconvenience of letting them live.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/03/12 - 04:16 pm
0
0
harley, when does life end?

harley, when does life end?

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 02/03/12 - 04:17 pm
0
0
Me telling a woman if, how,

Me telling a woman if, how, and when she can have an abortion is like a woman telling me how much to clip off during my circumcision. Regardless of the implications and the arguement of whether there is a life taken or if the embryo is parasitic, etc. It's a human woman's body at the core of the issue and I don't fit that profile. So let the women make the decision. I understand how a male can argue their inclusion in debate, but compared to the level a woman is invested, dudes are not even close. They should stop meddling b/c all it does is cause disorder and dillutes the women-based arguements.

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 04:38 pm
0
0
bjphysics asked "harley, when

bjphysics asked "harley, when does life end?"

I don't know. I assume when all brain and heart activity stops, but I don't know the scientific description (nor do I particularly care to know it).

What's the relevance?

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 04:40 pm
0
0
David Parker said "Me telling

David Parker said "Me telling a woman if, how, and when she can have an abortion is like a woman telling me how much to clip off during my circumcision."

I suppose if you consider a piece of skin at the end of your penis equal to a human life you might have a point.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 02/03/12 - 04:42 pm
0
0
Interesting conundrum for

Interesting conundrum for ever1.

Conjoined twins are in the womb. Allowing them to develop naturally, they are given zero percent of surviving through delivery. Cessarian offers the best chance of survival but only for one, as when they are "born" they would immediately separate them surgically, which will also terminate the twin that doesn't get the vital organs they share currently.

How do you proceed? You either take a life to save a life or you do nothing and save neither. Careful, b/c by choosing to take action you are condemning one twin. And don't fall back and punt by saying, "well, one is better than neither" b/c that's playing God and not allowed for our purposes here.

I'm not trying to draw anyone in and make a point. But it's an alternate way to look at the issues being discussed here and maybe someone else with more eloquence than me can translate the answers into a conclusion that makes sense for everyone. B/c that's what the abortion issue needs obviously....unity.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 02/03/12 - 04:44 pm
0
0
That's right Harles, keep

That's right Harles, keep that naive attitude for all it's worth. I'm certain it will pay off one day. Well, maybe anyway.

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 04:55 pm
0
0
Naive? You equated your

Naive? You equated your foreskin to the life of an unborn child, not me. I suppose naive is not the right word for that, but I'd likely get censored on here if I used one more appropriate.

Riverman1
84012
Points
Riverman1 02/03/12 - 05:01 pm
0
0
This coversation about

This coversation about cutting off foreskins is making me uncomfortable.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 02/03/12 - 05:01 pm
0
0
No you did the equating. My

No you did the equating. My point was men should not make decisions about women's bodies and you knew it. I'd be ashamed for trying to bring the discussion where you brought it. Were you just trying to use shock value to manipulate people? You are right, naive is certainly not the word for what you are engaging in. You are right in the drivers seat for sure. I like that Harley. We should really have a beer b/c I'm not a bad person.

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 05:01 pm
0
0
David Parker said

David Parker said "Interesting conundrum for ever1."

What's interesting about it? It's an imaginary story made up with the sole intention of disguising the real issue behind a false premise.

The answer is that you consider all the facts the doctor(s) present and then make the best decision possible. With the facts you provide, it would likely be to save one of the children.

But that's not the issue with abortion.....and you know it. The choice with abortion is more likely between a nuisance pregnancy and a new bathing suit that a solemn choice of which child to save.

harley_52
23378
Points
harley_52 02/03/12 - 05:05 pm
0
0
David Parker said "Me

David Parker said "Me telling a woman if, how, and when she can have an abortion is like a woman telling me how much to clip off during my circumcision."

Then he said "I'd be ashamed for trying to bring the discussion where you brought it."

Can you understand how little sense that makes?

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/03/12 - 05:05 pm
0
0
Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 02/03/12 - 05:13 pm
0
0
regardless of with me or

regardless of with me or nobody, harley, calm it down and have a drink. Go rave to someone that can help you. I'm trying to get the male species out of the fray altogether so you gain nothing by converting my opinion.

You obviously won't take off the blinders and acknowledge anyone else but your own proclamations so I'll soothe you by saying you win. I've nothing further to add.

seenitB4
87304
Points
seenitB4 02/03/12 - 05:56 pm
0
0
Ok now....How many men on

Ok now....How many men on here have actually given birth...please raise your hand....what no hands ...I didn't think so.

seenitB4
87304
Points
seenitB4 02/03/12 - 06:23 pm
0
0
Carry on guys...heheh...I

Carry on guys...heheh...I didn't mean to stop the conversation...I'm leaving.....>>>>>>>>>>>

Back to Top

Top headlines

Many black colleges struggling

Although Paine has struggled with its own failures over the past several years, HBCUs across the nation are dealing with some of the same troubles that are threatening their missions and existence.
Search Augusta jobs