A Tale of Two Protests
Take two protests, both in our nation’s capitol, both heavily attended, both on current hot topics. Should the coverage of the two by the “balanced” media be comparable? You’d think so. You’d be wrong.
Within one week, the liberal bias of the Washington Post has been made perfectly obvious. On Monday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for the March for Life, but the hometown paper put the story on the bottom of page A-10 Tuesday morning. On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters emerged on Washington for a rally against President Bush and the war in Iraq. The Post blasted that story across the front page on Sunday, complete with a large color picture taking a wide shot of hundreds of marchers and their signs and banners. Tuesday’s story on abortion protests matched carried no wide shot of hundreds. It showed four pro-life marchers, and matched them with another picture of five feminists counter-protesting. There were no photos of conservative counter-protesters in the Sunday paper.
[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Sunday on the MRC’s blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
The Post not only let the anti-Iraq rally dominate the front page, but devoted an entire page (A-8) to more photos and a story on student protesters. The front-page story carried over to most of page A-9. Jane Fonda’s appearance at the march drew another story, placed on the front page of the Style section.
Newspaper coverage of events such as these pose a challenge for appearing fair, no doubt about it. A journalist writing a letter to the editor of his town’s big paper, and an attendee of the March for Life, acknowledged this problem. However, he also believes that fear of appearing unbiased is keeping the coverage to a bare minimum.
What they [the local kids he travelled with] weren’t prepared for was calling home to find that their parents missed the minute-long coverage the event merited on the evening news. They weren’t prepared to arrive home on Tuesday afternoon and pick up the paper to find that there was no coverage whatsoever. It was almost as if the whole thing had been an illusion — that it hadn’t really been that big a deal.
As a member of the press, I have a respect for editors and the decisions they have to make about coverage. I know that the coverage of controversial issues and events presents special difficulty for editors, since a fair and unbiased newspaper covers multiple viewpoints. Most often, the press ends up being attacked by both sides for its attempt at what can only be described as a thankless task. The Tribune has covered local pro-life events and issues in the past.
But abortion in general and the March for Life in particular have always presented special difficulties for a newspaper that sets out to present unbiased coverage. How does one present unbiased coverage of an event like the march, which is overwhelmingly one-sided? The solution in past years has been a careful weaving together of this pro-life event and the various counter-protests that have surrounded it.
But recent marches have made this difficult, since the number of counter-protesters has dwindled over the years. It seems that the media has found it difficult to maintain unbiased coverage simply because there are no pro-choice protesters to be found. Following what seems to be a justified editorial philosophy, coverage of the March has likewise dwindled even as the annual event grows in size.
Thus it seems that pro-choice protesters have found their absence more valuable than their presence.
As applied to the Washington Post, however, the sentiment is likely misplaced. The Post didn’t seem to have any problem ignoring dissenting opinions. When you show one picture for and one against, you leave the impression that the representations of the two points were similar. The did this with the March for Life, but definitely not for the anti-war protest.
For some newspapers, it may be a tough call. For the Washington Post, the bias has already made the decision.
Technorati Tags: abortiom, media, Washington Post, March for Life, bias
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I have to concede, you’re right about this one. I had no idea that this March for Life took place and it seems to have been massive. When We the People take to the streets, that’s important to me. I want to know about it. That’s democracy.
Indeed. Just keep this in mind when the Post asks you to believe that it’s fair and balanced.
“Indeed. Just keep this in mind when the Post asks you to believe that it’s fair and balanced.”
I don’t mind political bias. If it’s a good journalist, bias shows up in the words chosen or stories focused, but it shouldn’t show up in false facts. Most of the American media these days is so junky. It’s all owned by five corporations anyhow: AOL/Time/Warner, Viacom, Newscorp, GE, and AT&T. They let you know what they want you to know, but mostly they try to distract you with sex and violence.
Besides, media should have values and objectivity in my opinion. Fair and balanced is a starting point — but as a goal, it usually ends up letting two liars argue with each other. The goal should be truth and facts – not balance. Often, one side is just wrong. More often, both sides are. I’d give anything for a reporter that asks the kind of questions I want to know. Best you can do is have several sources and try to piece it together. Never hurts to include a foreign news source in your readings either.