March for Life Bias Starts Early

UPDATE: Check out this photo essay from USA Today. Nicely done. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/25/abortion-march-for-life-washington/1864051/

I spend a good chunk of a class period I do on media bias talking about the March for Life coverage and what it says about America’s media. More on that in a second, but I followed the media more closely than usual this year.

I was watching it because Benedictine College’s  epic 7 bus trip from Atchison, Kan., to Washington, D.C. got so much mainstream media coverage: USA Today … Louisville (KY) Courier-JournalRochester (NY) Democrate & ChronicleLivingston County (MI) Daily (This in addition to Catholic News Agency/EWTNZenitCardinal Newman SocietyLifeNews.com.)

I appreciated the secular coverage … but I also got to see how it changed.

This is what the USA Today story looks like now.

In case you can’t see that picture, here it is bigger. Yes, it is a story of a pro-life march illustrated by … pro-abortion marchers. (Don’t call them pro-choice: They want “Abortion on Demand & Without Apology.”)

Through the magic of caching here’s a picture of what the story originally looked like:

Here is that original picture close-up. (Ironically, this came from a Google images search and you can see in the background that the photo no longer exists on the page.)

The story about the pro-life protest originally had a picture of a pro-life protester. But not for long.

Now, of course this is nothing new. The annual March for Life is always covered as if it were every bit a march for abortion. Yet I have never seen a pro-abortion protester at the March for Life, and my college sophomore daughter who has gone a lot more than me (every year of her life, I think; including in utero, appropriately) has never seen one either.

My favorite example is this 2010 CNN story. To look at it you would think that this is flat-out a march to keep abortion legal, not a march to end it. Notice the picture, headline and lead sentence:

How could they do such a thing? Well, They probably feel like they covered themselves by making a second photo clickable (see the “2″ above?). Here is that photo:

That year, 2010, was a great one for March for Life bias. Here is a Newsweek headline by a reporter who has apparently never gone to the March for Life:

In class, I like to pair that with those two CNN pictures and ask: Which group do you think the reporter has spent time with?

But then  I pair it with some random pictures from the March, just for fun. I’ll leave you with those ….

UPDATE: Kudos to USA Today. Here’s a noon update of that March for Life story’s photo … and here are reporter Natalie DiBlasio’s tweets:

————————–

Tom Hoopes is writer in residence at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kan., where he teaches in the Journalism and Mass Communications department and edits the college’s Catholic identity speech digest, The Gregorian.

3,034 views

Categories:Uncategorized

63 thoughts on “March for Life Bias Starts Early

  1. Ethan says:

    It’s very likely that the paper decided they were giving too much credence to one argument without taking into account those underrepresented at the protests. The purpose of journalism is not to re-print press releases, but to provide the full picture.

    1. abadilla says:

      “The purpose of journalism is not to re-print press releases, but to provide the full picture.”
      But that is the point Ethan, they don’t provide the “full picture.” If the media had reported accurately to the whole nation what happened in Washington D.C. yesterday with the March for Life and today they report on the Gun Control March, one could say they are presenting the “full” picture, but folks know about the March for Life because they see it in Catholic websites in the INTERNET, not because the media tells us there was a March for Life. You might think this is “accidental” but the accident has been happening since 1973!

      1. Ethan says:

        And this is because when things have been ruled on by the top court in the land they tend to not be as controversial. Every opinion gets its day in court and this one lost, which is why it is no longer an issue for a vast majority of Americans. This “has been happening since 1973″ because the issue was decided then. Again, I agree completely with your right to follow your church’s teachings on the issue of abortion. I also agree completely with your right to advise others against abortion (in a civil and kind tone) to the best of your ability. Where I draw the line is dictating the decision of an entire gender because of a viewpoint that has little backing in the scientific community.

        1. Chelsi Creech says:

          Most embryology textbooks would disagree with your last statement. Also, if abortion is “no longer controversial” it would not have been an important issue in the election and the “war on women” wouldn’t have been trumped up

          1. abadilla says:

            And remember Miss Fluke demanding her contraceptives for free and decrying the fact that Republicans were about to take away the right of women to butcher their children? And all that propaganda worked, since Obama was re-elected, yet we are told “dirty politics” does not work.

          2. Ethan says:

            Can you give me an example of a textbook that says outright that “abortion is bad”? Science is about what can be proven, not about jumping to conclusions, but that’s a debate for another day…

          3. Chelsi Creech says:

            Can you show me an example of science textbook that says that robbery is wrong? Or murder? Or slavery? Science has proven that a new human life is present at conception, because new human DNA is present. A human embryo meets all the biological qualifactions for life as well. Is murder wrong? If yes, then what is murder? Is it the taking of an innocent human life? If not, please define murder. If yes, then abortion is murder. Personhood may not be proven, but science can’t prove personhood. It is a sticky thing to define certain humans out of personhood. When that becomes the question, someone, some day, may decide that for some reason, you are not a person. Take a look at Peter Singer’s arguments for infanticide and euthanasia if you think it can’t/won’t happen.

          4. Ethan says:

            I don’t know how you could so blatantly confuse the political issues with biology and I’m also unsure at what your qualifications for life and sentience are beyond “the Pope said so”. New human DNA is present in every new skin cell that I shed and in every hair that I trim off of my head, thus the fact that DNA is present does not mean that something is alive and sentient.

            If you want to start throwing around inapplicable definitions, please be a little more creative.

          5. Chelsi Creech says:

            New human DNA, meaning that it is not the same as the woman’s DNA. Definition of life: Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
            Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
            Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
            Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
            Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process ofevolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
            Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
            Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

        2. abadilla says:

          “And this is because when things have been ruled on by the top court in the land they tend to not be as controversial.”

          I don’t know how old you were in 1973 but in 73 I was 23 years old and the issue was very controversial.

          “Every opinion gets its day in court and this one lost, which is why it is no longer an issue for a vast majority of Americans.”

          Really, no longer an issue among the vast majority of Americans? It is a burning issue even today and most Americans now reject abortion. Unfortunately most also still believe abortion should only be practiced in cases of rape or incest so the belief of most Americans is not “totally” pro-life.

          “This has been happening since 1973″ because the issue was decided then.”

          What I meant is that since 1973 the media has ignored the concerns of millions of Americans and that is why you have a growing number of Americans who believe that the media is not objective but “the propaganda arm” of leftist causes in this country.

          “Where I draw the line is dictating the decision of an entire gender because of a viewpoint that has little backing in the scientific community.”
          Ethan, I don’t know where you studied biology or more specifically embryology, because a cursory look at these studies will tell you that it is the scientific community that makes the pro-death side of this country look like fools. On religious grounds they can’t justify abortion but on scientific grounds, they can’t either.

          1. Ethan says:

            It may be a burning issue for you, but the majority of Americans no longer agree with you or feel that same passion.

            The supreme court has jurisdiction over laws that restrict the rights of citizens, they are less concerned with laws that dole out more rights. Roe v. Wade was an issue that dealt with restriction of rights. Religious belief is not sufficient reason to restrict rights under the establishment clause, and the science of the issue that was presented did not pass the test of strict scrutiny.

          2. abadilla says:

            Ethan,
            It is still a burning issue with millions of Americans or we would not be having huge marches talking about it.
            Religious belief had little to do with the laws all over this country that prohibited abortion before 1973 and certainly the lawyers who were making the case for the unborn before the Supreme Court in 1973 were making their presentations based on science, not religion. You disdain for religion is obvious, yet you keep coming into a religious website for more.
            The Supreme Court made a huge blunder in 1973 when it legalized the murder of the unborn just like it made a huge blunder in the 1800s when in the Dredd-Scott decision it said Black people were just property, not human beings.

          3. A.J. C says:

            Ethan, most polling on the issue misrepresents what Roe and its companion case Doe actually did, effectively permitting abortion on demand throughout the pregnancy. Those polls usually state that it allows abortion only within the first trimester, which is simply not true. Other polls pose questions reflecting the real decisions in 1973 and those polls show about two-thirds favoring abolishing most aspects of the current abortion regime including abortion for reasons of convenience (the overwhelming majority of them). Among constitutional scholars, the Roe decision is considered as a naked power grab and both deficient and embarrassing in its argumentation and reasoning. Blackman et al. wanted it and got it by any means possible, somewhere up there in the penumbra emanating from the actual Constitution.

      2. Ethan says:

        As I mentioned in a post above, the nation continuously polls that it is fine with the Roe v. Wade decision. Papers will not use more time or space than they have to on what amounts to a non-issue for 2/3 of the nation.

        1. abadilla says:

          The nation was also fine with slavery in the 1800s and it took a civil war to settled the issue. The nation was also O.K. with the Jim C laws and it took Civil Rights to deal with that. When something is evil, one does not say the majority of the population is comfortable with that. The destruction of the unborn is a blight on this country and a grievous sin. No nation incapable of protecting its most helpless members can be a blessed nation in spite of what many might think. The fact is most Americans are pro-life and that wasn’t always the case. What most Americans believe is that abortion should remain an option in cases of rape and incest. That is very different from believing 2/3 pf the nation approve of murder.
          BTW, you really didn’t answer my question. Next time try harder.

          1. Ethan says:

            You’re simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that you’re in the statistical minority on this issue. I find it interesting that both of your examples come from the federal government intervening against restrictive state laws…(Roe v. Wade anyone?)

            And you can drop the “pro-life” moniker until you’re against the death penalty, war and a number of other “pro-death” conservative stances.

    2. Christopher R. says:

      So, that is what is happening when they provide a picture of something that is not the story they are covering? What if I did a story in the paper on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in front of the Lincoln Memorial and instead of showing him and the crowd, which is the story I am purportedly covering, the story was instead tagged with a picture of some “underrepresented” KKK guys? Would that really be good journalism? Instead of it providing a “full picture,” I think a proper description might be over representing a group that was there rather than simply giving an accurate depiction of what I am allegedly covering. If you are covering a rally, show the rally, and talk about who made up the crowd. If you are covering Dr. King or the Pro-Life March or the President then show them. Seems common sense to me. Of course, counter protesters should be mentioned and both sides of an argument given a fair shake in an article. I am not denying that. Just simply take pictures of what you are purportedly covering and tag the best one as the main picture. The story is not counter-protesters, it is the March. Allegedly.

      1. abadilla says:

        The March for Life is huge but it also represents the majority of Americans who do not believe in abortion. That’s precisely why the media ignores it. They live in New York and liberal Los Angeles, and Chicago and major cities in this country where leftists are concentrated, and they believe their own propaganda and swallow their own kool aid. That’s why they are afraid to let the entire nation know the truth, that most Americans are pro-life and that the March for Life is a sympton of that truth.
        In effect Ethan, you are advocating a media that does not give us, the American public, the “full” picture and yet a few messages ago you advocated the opposite. If the media shows the Pro-Gun Control march and also shows the March for Life, I would think the media would not only be doing its job, but it would be even-handed. That is not the case now, and it has not been the case for decades. It’s funny, a few messages ago you wanted the Catholic Church to present “both” sides of an issue, but you won’t demand the same of our newsmedia. Why?

        1. Ethan says:

          The news media is presenting both sides of the argument as best they can, which is why they are a higher caliber news source. If you tend to agree with everything that a news outlet broadcasts or prints, then it’s not a high quality organization.

          1. A.J. C says:

            “The news media is presenting both sides of the argument as best they can,…” Wow, that is my candidate for most naive statement of the year, no of the past decade.

          2. abadilla says:

            Ethan, what do you mean “both” sides of an argument? They don’t even bother to present the March for Life, period. They have been ignoring it since 1973 presumably because you think the matter was settled by the Supreme Court but it is anything but settled nor is it an issue ignored by most Americans.
            Those of us who are pro-lifers are not asking for a “special” treatment from the media. All we want is for them to report what is really going on and then leave it up to people to think whatever they want to think. The media no longer gives us the news, they editorialized as much as they can and they insert their bias without considering they should be as objective as they possibly can.

    3. A.J. C says:

      Then let the pro abortion side hold their own demonstrations to get their media attention. 400,000 or more people demonstrated for life on Friday and a few dozen (at most) pro abortion demonstrators show up and somehow deserve equal media attention in your eyes. That is really absurd!

  2. Chris R says:

    I’ve noticed the same frustratingly biased media “coverage” over the last 30 years. Hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers and three pro-aborts would be covered as “Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice Protesters March on Washington”.

  3. Ethan says:

    So because a story attempts to provide background information from both sides of an obviously biased protest, it is automatically pro-abortion? These media outlets were trying to give background information and other photographs to avoid bias, not to create it. I don’t get it…

    1. abadilla says:

      Apparently you don’t get it because you seem too naïve to understand the bias of the media. The media is very pro-abortion and they continue to deny the butchery of the unborn.

      1. Ethan says:

        The media is not biased simply because it doesn’t cater to your particular point of view. You are already too invested in the argument to be able to judge bias objectively.

        1. abadilla says:

          Yes Ethan, I am definitely invested in the defense of the unborn and all the pro-abortionists out there, including those who work in the media, “conveniently” forget that their own mothers rejected abortion, otherwise they would not be here to defend it.

          1. Ethan says:

            And those are assuredly great and respect worthy beliefs, but the point that I am trying to get across here is that every idea has at least two sides. The point of being an American is that we respect each other, present both sides of an argument with equal time and respect, and then acknowledge the decision reached by majority vote as legitimate. Unfortunately these ideals have fallen by the wayside.

          2. abadilla says:

            “The point of being an American is that we respect each other…”
            Where is that respect from those who disagree with CV and constantly come in here to hurl insults at those of us who respect Church teaching?
            Which decision was reached by majority vote?

          3. Ethan says:

            I believe I have been civil, have I not? If disagreeing has become tantamount to disrespecting, then we are indeed in a sad state of affairs. Please name me one insult I have “hurled” and I will gladly apologize. While I respect the right of your church to lead its followers, I happen to believe in the guarantee of separation of church and state that our constitution dictates.

          4. abadilla says:

            Ethan, please show me where I have accused you directly, by name, of what others do here. If you read my post again, you will not find the name “Ethan” anywhere.

          5. Ethan says:

            Then don’t tell me about it.

          6. A.J. C says:

            Ethan, what does the so-called “separation of church and state” have to do with coverage of the pro life demonstration or the demonstration itself? The phrase does not even appear in the Constitution although guarantees of freedom of religion and speech do. I suspect you threw that phrase in to underline your contempt for our faith and church. If you really cared about what you assume it means, you would oppose a Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade and Doe v, Bolton) that cut off any democratic process regarding the highly contentious issue of abortion aka child killing.

        2. abadilla says:

          Ethan, what is the main story on media outlets today? The gun control people showing up in Washington D.C. What about what took place in Washington D.C. yesterday? Why didn’t the media report thousands of pro-lifers protesting abortion? Simple, they are pro-death, period!
          The same media who pushed Obama down our throats, is the same media who refuses to ask hard questions from the President, and it is the same media that caters to the Left, so what did they do yesterday? They ignored the March for Life, but today they could not wait to tell the nation about the “Gun Control March.” Why? Because gun control is now the darling of the media, the darling of this President, and the darling of the Left. Why do I think they are hypocrites? Simple, those folks talk about the environment and how we are responsible for messing it up, they cry anytime a whale dies, they tell us to eat nutritional food, but at the same time they hate the unborn, pee at Capitalism everytime they can yet live comfortable lives under Capitalism, praise a President who is destroying the economy and give lip service to freedom of religion, just to name a few.

          1. Ethan says:

            “‘Gun control is now the darling of the media’” because 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers were murdered a month ago in cold blood which slightly changes the context of the issue. The facts and beliefs surrounding abortion have not changed one iota since their inception long before 1973.

          2. abadilla says:

            “‘Gun control is now the darling of the media’” because 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers were murdered a month ago in cold blood which slightly changes the context of the issue.”

            Your perception. My perception is that the media, the leftist government we have, and hypocritical Hollywood are using this tragedy for their own political gain. They won’t let a tragedy go to waste.

            “The facts and beliefs surrounding abortion have not changed one iota since their inception long before 1973.”
            What “facts?” The facts the Supreme Court never bothered to read before they made the most tragic decision of the 20th Century? You know what those facts were? The pro-life side tried to tell the Court about the development of the child in the womb of the mother and the court would hear none of it because it had already decided it was going to legalized the murder of the unborn.
            Abortion continues to be highly controversial in this country and a subject most people don’t talk about because it can get very ugly. When I told you about 1973, I was telling you that since that year the media has ignored the March for Life and this year was no different. It is indefensible to claim the media is “objective” when it ignores the majority of the country because the majority of the country, in poll after poll, is pro-life. Even in universities, where leftist propaganda reigns supreme, the majority of university students are against abortion. I have worked with high school students for 30 years and today, maybe one out of 150, will say he favors abortion.

          3. Ethan says:

            Ok, I’ll deal with this in two parts. First to put it simply, you are not/no longer of the majority opinion on this issue. Those wishing to overturn Roe v. Wade represent no more than a third of the population on average since 1989. A solid two thirds majority believe that the decision should stand as is according to numerous years of Gallup polling.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

            There is a very distinct difference between being pro-life and being anti-abortion.

            I don’t know your involvement with high school students (I sincerely hope that no one in the public sector is allowing you to intentionally proselytize towards young minds from a position of power) but in any case, this involvement has little bearing on the views of the nation as a whole (especially if you work with religious school students)

          4. Marvin Derks says:

            It is a bit scary to think what abadilla may be teaching children. He believes that 60% of Americans (pro-choice advocates) hate and want to kill fetuses. Is he teaching his belief to children? I sure hope not.

      2. Marvin Derks says:

        Your jump to “too naïve” seems a bit critical abadilla. Not like you.

        1. abadilla says:

          Too naïve was not meant to be as bit critical at all. It was meant to be very critical indeed.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            You’ve used the phrases “too naive,” “pro-abortionists,” “pro-death” and “hate the unborn.” You stick labels on those who disagree with you and then claim that you and your church are being attacked when someone reacts to these labels you place on them. If those who disagree with you bother you that much then ignore them rather than resorting to demeaning labels.

          2. abadilla says:

            “You stick labels on those who disagree with,” Are the labels incorrect? If a person is too gullible, is he or she not naïve? If a person believes it is a woman’s right to get rid of “the product of conception” as they cowardly call it becuse they won’t use the word “baby,” is it wrong for me to call those folks pro-abortionists? Are they not in favor of abortion? If yes, how is my label inaccurate? If a person believes in the destruction of the unborn, are they not pro-death? Since what happens during an abortion is the death of a child, why is it wrong to label someone who supports abortion, pro-death? Those are not meant to be “demeaning” labels, those labels are supposed to describe accurately who those folks are. In my classroom from time to time a student will say to me, “you look Hispanic.” I don’t get offended at the label. Do you know why Marvin? Because that’s exactly what I am, Hispanic. However, in politically correct society we can’t use labels even when we use them accurately.
            If a person says he or she does not believe in God, would I be dead wrong in calling that person an “atheist?” There, I just labeled someone. Would you be inaccurate in stating I am a “Roman Catholic?” No, that would be an accurate label to describe me.
            I get the impression you think “any” kind of labeling is wrong?

          3. Marvin Derks says:

            In a previous post you said you have friends who are pro-choice. So you consider them “pro-abortionists” and “pro-death” and “haters of the unborn”, correct? Do they know this? Have you ever called these so called friends any of these labels? Would it be accurate to label you ” a hater of women” or “anti human rights” or “pro-destruction of women’s rights” because you oppose a woman’s right of choice? I think not. Your labeling is not wrong because of the label. It’s wrong because of your intent in using those labels. It’s degrading and that’s your intent.

          4. abadilla says:

            “In a previous post you said you have friends who are pro-choice. So you consider them “pro-abortionists” and “pro-death” and “haters of the unborn”, correct? Do they know this?” No, because they haven’t asked me. We don’t deal with the issue when we talk because they know I’m a religion or theology teacher and therefore they won’t ask me what they already suspect. I have encouraged all my friends to read what is on CV so I presume some of them will or have done so already so they now know what my feelings are.

            “Would it be accurate to label you ” a hater of women” or “anti human rights” or “pro-destruction of women’s rights” because you oppose a woman’s right of choice? I think not.”
            If I were to believe only male children should be allowed to be born, it would be accurate to call me a “woman hater.” Am I a woman hater because I believe the priesthood should always be an all-male priesthood? Since I don’t believe a woman has the “right” to destroy her child in ther womb and that such a right is “a human right,” no, it would be inaccurate to say I’m against human rights. I don’t believe in “invented” human rights that were born as a result of ideology.
            When the “choice” of a woman is the destruction of a baby in her womb, yes, I do say that is not just an abomination and evil, but the result of a dead conscience and a mortal sin that puts that woman’s salvation into question, to say the least. One can choose to buy a car, a blouse, shoes, make-up items. One can choose to go into a particular restaurant because they have good service and not to go into another restaurant because they have poor service. One can choose to have a good mechanic or not, what one can never choose is the destruction of another human being. That is clearly wrong and you still won’t admit to that truth.
            I told you that using labels inaccurately is wrong, but using labels accurately is simply the description of reality. For example, what do you call someone who illegally enters the country? I call them “illegal” aliens. Now is that good or bad labeling? I believe it is accurate to describe someone who is here illegally as “illegal.” I would be dead wrong however if I were to say because those folks are “illegal” we can violate their human rights, but obvioulsy “your” understanding of what a human right is and “my” understandig of what a human right is, is completely different. I think it is sad we can’t even agree on what a human right is. If a member of the KKK stands in a little town giving a speech and he claims he wants all Jews, Catholics, and Blacks dead, would it be wrong for me to label him or her a “hater,” or would the label be accurate?

          5. Marvin Derks says:

            So you do indeed, believe that your pro-choice friends are “haters of the unborn.”

          6. abadilla says:

            Yes, because they mistakenly believe what is being destroyed is not a human being, just a fetus, which has been your argument before.
            Of course, I find it rather odd when their wives get pregnant and they want to have their child. Then, suddenly, they go from “it’s a fetus,” to “it’s a child.” Go figure!

          7. Marvin Derks says:

            Your pro-choice “friends” get pregnant and have children proving that they’re not “haters of the unborn” and yet you cling to the belief that they do “hate the unborn.” In other words, if the data you’re presented with doesn’t match your beliefs, rather than recognize that your beliefs are wrong, you simply go to “go figure.” Pro-choice advocates don’t hate fetuses. It’s that simple. Get over it. We’re not your enemy. We simply disagree.

          8. abadilla says:

            Marvin, why don’t you address their lack of consistency. On the one hand they believe like you do that a fetus is not even human because I presume at the end of nine months they have seen women having cats, fish, mules, donkeys, or chickens, and on the other hand when they want to have the fetus, then the fetus is a baby. They are the ones being inconsistent, not me, since I believe a zygote, and embryo, and a fetus is as human as an infant and an adolescent, not because my religion told me so, but because common sense and Biology 101 informed so.
            You say “we simply disagree.” How neat, while you and I and others disagree, children continue to be butchered in the womb of so-called mothers, but I’m supposed to pretend this is a mere disagreement between gentlemen.
            Marvin, one day you’ll stand in front of the Judge of the universe and He can’t accuse me of fostering on earth the death of unborn children. Will anyone who favors abortion be able to say the same? If I’m wrong, well, there will be no judgment, no God, nothing, but if the pro-aborts are wrong, I would not want to be in their shoes. It fascinates me to see how so many people favor abortion-the butchery of children- yet their own mothers never favored abortion because if they had, the pro-aborts would not be here to defend the indefensible.

          9. Marvin Derks says:

            There’s no logic in your response.

          10. abadilla says:

            Oh yes, there is logic in my response and I will let others be the judge of how much logic there is in my response to you.

          11. Ethan says:

            It is your right to label people whatever you want, it only speaks to the low level of your discourse. There are completely benign terms that can be used to describe these people and viewpoints, yet you continue to spout the most inflammatory rhetoric that you can pull out of your head. How does that help your point anywhere, in any discussion, with anyone?

          12. abadilla says:

            No, you are simply refusing to acknowledge there is good and bad labeling, accurate labeling and labeling which by its very nature is harmful. I already explained this to you, so either you are nor reading my explanations, or you insist on twisting my words to mean something they don’t mean.

    2. Kare Ive says:

      This is a pro life march. Why is there not a picture of the estimated 500,000 pro life marchers that attended this year as the main photo? Does that answer your question? Instead of showing the 400,000 + photo of the pro life marchers from last year they show one protester, remove that and show 5! And did your read the original headline? Disgusting. Go to EWTN to see how many really came ;) .

      The headline should have wrote “Hundreds of thousands expected for Pro Life March.” not just thousands!

      1. Ethan says:

        This is simply because EWTN is a propaganda arm of the Vatican. I would give as much credence to EWTN as I would to the Democratic party monthly newsletter, (which is not a lot). How did they arrive at these statistics that you tout so assuredly?

        1. abadilla says:

          “This is simply because EWTN is a propaganda arm of the Vatican.”
          So, now when a Catholic television network is faithful to the bishop of Rome, it automatically becomes a “propaganda arm of the Vatican?”
          Well should EWTN dissent openly from Church teaching for you to imagine EWTN is not a propaganda arm of the Vatican?
          When Mother Angelica started EWTN the Vatican did not give her a penny nor did she ask for it, but Mother Angelica and her nuns are not like the Nuns on the Bus, pretending to be Catholic as they bite the hand that feeds them.

          1. Ethan says:

            Yes, being “faithful to the bishop of Rome” is exactly what being a biased “‘propaganda arm of the Vatican’” means. There is a massive difference between dissenting from church teaching and merely presenting both sides of an issue. Had EWTN made even the slightest attempt to address the point of view presented by pro-choice protesters, then I would have a little more sympathy.

          2. abadilla says:

            Ethan, this is my idea of “propaganda” as defined by dictionaries,
            “Noun
            Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
            The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.”

            To accuse the Church or EWTN of spreading information which is biased or of a misleading nature is NOT to understand the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter. When Our Lord told us, Christians, to “go and teach the Gospel and to baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that might be “propaganda” for you, but to us it is a sacred duty. No one is forced to be a Roman Catholic. If a person feels all the Church does is to spread “bias” information and promote hate and bigotry as some folks here have accused her of doing, all they have to do is to leave and I hope they won’t allow the door to hit their behinds.
            EWTN is not here to spread evil, the secular media is doing a fine job doing just that. What is the other “side” of abortion, an abomination in the eyes of the Church? When I teach 137 students about racism, do you think I should teach them also the “value” of racism? After all, I should be teaching BOTH sides of the issue, right? When I teach the Holocaust to an entire Senior class, should I also tell them the “virtues” of butchering Jews? We know what the pro-choice protestors believe and want. They believe the fetus is simply not a child and that it is a woman’s right to get rid of “it” because they won’t even acknowledge they are dealing with a person, a she, a he. They want to keep murder legal. Is that the point of view you want a Catholic television station to promote so you won’t call it “the propaganda arm of the Vatican?” Do you think this is the reason why Mother Angelica founded EWTN for? Now, if Planned Parenthood and other dark organizations want to promote death, they certainly are welcomed in a democracy to do just that. They should build their own T.V. stations and promote abortion as a woman’s right.

          3. Ethan says:

            By the very definition you provided, EWTN provides “information especially of a biased…nature, used to promote or publicize a particular…point of view” My point is that other organizations don’t attempt to call their viewpoints “news”.

          4. abadilla says:

            No, EWTN presents the teaching of the Catholic Church, through Scripture programs, through women dealing with issues that affect their lives, through men and how they practice the faith in the midst of an often hostile society, through the lives of the saints, through meditation services, through the praying of the Rosary, and on Thursdays there is a program called “The World Over” which transmits the news of the Catholic Church worldwide and they have interviews. There is also a program called “The Journey Home” in which people of other faiths that converted to Catholicism are interviewed to understand their conversion process. There is a program on Church History also,There is also entire sections dedicated to young people and to children. EWTN presents the Catholic worldview and no one, not even Catholics are force to see them. With the exception of “The World Over” the other programs deal with Church teaching and if one wants news, one gets it from “The World Over.”

  4. ladycygnus says:

    I’ve been 3 times and seen maybe a dozen pro-abortion protestors. The first year I saw exactly 0, the next year I saw three (two young women and a man), after the end of the march. We had already past the court and the crowd was splitting to go back to the buses, I took a pic of them so they felt acknowledged. The next year I walked near the front and got up closer to the supreme court and saw about 6-10 behind a barricade.

  5. Micah Murphy says:

    I saw a pro-abortion protester at the March once. He wasn’t really at the March per se. He was a CUA student standing on the corner of the campus at the metro station screaming at all of us. It was pretty pathetic in contrast to the many thousands who showed up to speak for the unborn.

  6. Great column! As it happens, I was at the 2010 March and was surprised to find out that the thousands upon thousands of teenage girls there must have been a figment of my imagination. One reason abortion has remained in our nation is that the media is pro-abortion and will not tell the truth-that it kills babies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.