News Media Bias
The media are mostly liberal and pro-abortion (over 80 percent of the national media voted for Clinton in the last election). This bias is cleanly reflected in news coverage of the abortion debate. Gina Kolata, the New York Times health reporter is quite frank about it.
“If you read their pieces, you can usually figure out what they [reporters] think…Anybody who reads the New York Times who doesn’t think the New York Times is pro-choice, they are out of their minds…we send messages all the time about what we think,” Kolata said.
The Media Research Center, a media watchdog organization, documents five ways that the news media slant their coverage of the abortion issue: (1) the pro-life viewpoint is presented as ideological while the pro-abortion side is not, (2) the abortion issue is divisive only in the Republican party, (3) reporters show little interest in the facts behind partial-birth abortion, (4) pro-life protests and activities are not news, and (5) pro-abortion violence is not news.
In a survey of 1,050 stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today in 1995 and 1996 mentioning at least one of four pro-life groups or four abortion advocacy groups found that pro-life groups were labeled ‘conservative’ in 47 percent of the articles. Abortion advocacy groups were called “liberal” in less than three percent of the articles.
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) was labeled “liberal” in 7 out of 131 articles (5 percent). The Feminist Majority Foundation was called “liberal” once in 38 stories. Planned Parenthood, the largest national abortion-provider, was described as “liberal” only in 7 out of 315 articles (2.2 percent). The National Organization of Women (NOW) was labeled 4 times out of 168 articles (2 percent).
Media Research Center also notes that usually no “liberal” nametag accompanied NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or NOW, even though each organization funds political action committees that give millions of dollars to liberal Democratic candidates.
The media also controls the abortion lexicon. In none of the 387 stories on pro-life groups were they ever described as “pro-life,” but rather as “anti-abortion,” “abortion opponents,” or “abortion foes.” Predictably, in 682 reports on abortion advocacy groups, the terms “’pro-abortion,” “abortion suppliers,” or “abortion advocates” were not used. Instead, reporters referred to them as “abortion rights suppliers.”
U.S. News & World Report gives a typical example of media characterization: “Specter [R-Pa] hopes his pro-abortion-rights stand and other moderate positions will make him an attractive alternative to the party’s increasingly dominant far-right wing.” (November 7, 1994 ‘Washington Whispers’)
During the 1996 party conventions the three major networks devoted 60 morning and evening news segments to the abortion language in the Republican platform. On the Sunday morning interview shows one week before the convention, reporters asked 27 questions about the possible exclusion of pro-abortion Republicans. Arguments over the Democratic abortion stance as well as the exclusion of pro-life Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey and Rep. Tony Hall from convention speaking was unmentioned.
While Congress and the President wrangled over partial-birth abortion in 1995, the media made only feeble attempts to investigate the process. U.S. News & World Report wrote that about “100 to 400” partial-birth abortions were performed each year. ABC World News Now reported that “13,000” took place. Many news stories and programs called the procedure “rare” and “little-used.”
Ron Fitzsimmons, director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted in (tucked away on page A11) the New York Times, “[I] lied thorough my teeth” on an appearance on ABC’s Nightline. The Times wrote that he had said, “[T]he procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.” He later estimated that 5,000 partial-birth abortions take place each year, many with healthy mothers and babies.
When most people think of abortion violence, the first thing that comes to mind are abortion clinic bombings and shootings. Pro-abortion violence, let alone the violence of the abortion procedure itself, is seldom talked about or even known to exist. While constantly focusing on anti-abortion violence, the news media dutifully avoids reporting violence on the other side. In 1995 Pro-abortionist Daniel Adam Mahoney was indicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after he threatened to kill workers at a crisis pregnancy center and told an operator at the National Life Center he would kill protesters at abortion clinics.
In 1994 Earnest Robertson Jr. was picking up his wife at a Baton Rouge, Louisiana abortion clinic when he got into an argument with a protester. He drew a 9-mm pistol and shot him once before the gun jammed. He was charged with attempted second-degree murder.
Alice Hand called a Catholic church three times in January of 1995 and threatened to blow it up. When she was arrested she said the Catholic Church was responsible for abortion violence.
The Gainesville, Florida office of National Right to Life was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail in 1993 by pro-abortion activists.
In July of 1993 abortionist David Benjamin was convicted of murder in New York after a messy abortion killed Guadalupe Negron. Earlier that year, Angela Ruiz Hanna, a woman with no medical training who still performed abortions, killed Angela Neito Sanchez during an botched abortion. Sanchez had arrived at the clinic with two of her children.
Suresh Gandora lost his California abortion license after he perforated Magdalena Ortega-Rodriguez’s uterus and she bled to death.
All of these events, with a few exceptions, were more or less ignored by the national media.
The media are mostly liberal and pro-abortion (over 80 percent of the national media voted for Clinton in the last election). This bias is cleanly reflected in news coverage of the abortion debate. Gina Kolata, the New York Times health reporter is quite frank about it.
“If you read their pieces, you can usually figure out what they [reporters] think…Anybody who reads the New York Times who doesn’t think the New York Times is pro-choice, they are out of their minds…we send messages all the time about what we think,” Kolata said.
The Media Research Center, a media watchdog organization, documents five ways that the news media slant their coverage of the abortion issue: (1) the pro-life viewpoint is presented as ideological while the pro-abortion side is not, (2) the abortion issue is divisive only in the Republican party, (3) reporters show little interest in the facts behind partial-birth abortion, (4) pro-life protests and activities are not news, and (5) pro-abortion violence is not news.
In a survey of 1,050 stories in the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today in 1995 and 1996 mentioning at least one of four pro-life groups or four abortion advocacy groups found that pro-life groups were labeled ‘conservative’ in 47 percent of the articles. Abortion advocacy groups were called “liberal” in less than three percent of the articles.
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) was labeled “liberal” in 7 out of 131 articles (5 percent). The Feminist Majority Foundation was called “liberal” once in 38 stories. Planned Parenthood, the largest national abortion-provider, was described as “liberal” only in 7 out of 315 articles (2.2 percent). The National Organization of Women (NOW) was labeled 4 times out of 168 articles (2 percent).
Media Research Center also notes that usually no “liberal” nametag accompanied NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or NOW, even though each organization funds political action committees that give millions of dollars to liberal Democratic candidates.
The media also controls the abortion lexicon. In none of the 387 stories on pro-life groups were they ever described as “pro-life,” but rather as “anti-abortion,” “abortion opponents,” or “abortion foes.” Predictably, in 682 reports on abortion advocacy groups, the terms “’pro-abortion,” “abortion suppliers,” or “abortion advocates” were not used. Instead, reporters referred to them as “abortion rights suppliers.”
U.S. News & World Report gives a typical example of media characterization: “Specter [R-Pa] hopes his pro-abortion-rights stand and other moderate positions will make him an attractive alternative to the party’s increasingly dominant far-right wing.” (November 7, 1994 ‘Washington Whispers’)
During the 1996 party conventions the three major networks devoted 60 morning and evening news segments to the abortion language in the Republican platform. On the Sunday morning interview shows one week before the convention, reporters asked 27 questions about the possible exclusion of pro-abortion Republicans. Arguments over the Democratic abortion stance as well as the exclusion of pro-life Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey and Rep. Tony Hall from convention speaking was unmentioned.
While Congress and the President wrangled over partial-birth abortion in 1995, the media made only feeble attempts to investigate the process. U.S. News & World Report wrote that about “100 to 400” partial-birth abortions were performed each year. ABC World News Now reported that “13,000” took place. Many news stories and programs called the procedure “rare” and “little-used.”
Ron Fitzsimmons, director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted in (tucked away on page A11) the New York Times, “[I] lied thorough my teeth” on an appearance on ABC’s Nightline. The Times wrote that he had said, “[T]he procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.” He later estimated that 5,000 partial-birth abortions take place each year, many with healthy mothers and babies.
When most people think of abortion violence, the first thing that comes to mind are abortion clinic bombings and shootings. Pro-abortion violence, let alone the violence of the abortion procedure itself, is seldom talked about or even known to exist. While constantly focusing on anti-abortion violence, the news media dutifully avoids reporting violence on the other side. In 1995 Pro-abortionist Daniel Adam Mahoney was indicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after he threatened to kill workers at a crisis pregnancy center and told an operator at the National Life Center he would kill protesters at abortion clinics.
In 1994 Earnest Robertson Jr. was picking up his wife at a Baton Rouge, Louisiana abortion clinic when he got into an argument with a protester. He drew a 9-mm pistol and shot him once before the gun jammed. He was charged with attempted second-degree murder.
Alice Hand called a Catholic church three times in January of 1995 and threatened to blow it up. When she was arrested she said the Catholic Church was responsible for abortion violence.
The Gainesville, Florida office of National Right to Life was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail in 1993 by pro-abortion activists.
In July of 1993 abortionist David Benjamin was convicted of murder in New York after a messy abortion killed Guadalupe Negron. Earlier that year, Angela Ruiz Hanna, a woman with no medical training who still performed abortions, killed Angela Neito Sanchez during an botched abortion. Sanchez had arrived at the clinic with two of her children.
Suresh Gandora lost his California abortion license after he perforated Magdalena Ortega-Rodriguez’s uterus and she bled to death.
All of these events, with a few exceptions, were more or less ignored by the national media.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home