Media Bias Distorting the News Media bias against life issues has been noted for many years, from terminology (“anti-abortion” instead of Pro-Life) to coverage of issues (stories on therapeutic cloning favored over stories about successes using adult stem cells). Two recent examples show how blatant this bias has become. The 2002 March for Life on January 22nd in Washington, D.C. received virtually no coverage in Chicago area newspapers. The Chicago Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women received a reply from the Chicago Tribune to their letter protesting this media blackout. In that letter, Don Wycliff states, “You speak of bias and censorship and blackout of coverage of the annual March for Life. I am afraid, however, that the real reason for the lack of coverage lies in another word: newsworthiness. The mere bringing together of 100,000 people does not make the event newsworthy. Such a gathering has to carry with it the promise, or at least the prospect, of creating real change in our politics or our laws. For better or for worse, that is not the case with the March for Life.” Using such criteria, how does the Tribune find stories about abortion supporters celebrating the Roe v. Wade anniversary as newsworthy? This suggests a double standard. And one can argue that the prospect of change is very real. At least a statement by Kate Michelman of NARAL suggests the “threat” to the “right to choose” presented by the Bush administration is very real. Maybe you would like to let Don Wycliff know what you think of his explanation for no coverage. You can write him at: DON WYCLIFF, Public Editor, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 435 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611-4041. The second example is another terminology issue. Several Pro-Life members of Congress criticized the Associated Press for its use of the term “fetus” in news stories to describe a fully born human infant. The House passed the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” on March 12. Shortly after that, an AP story by Staff Writer Jesse Holland ran under the headline, “House OKs Fetus Protection Bill.” The next day, 17 members of the House Pro-Life Caucus wrote AP’s Washington Bureau Chief, Sandy Johnson, to question the use of the term “fetus”. Regrettably, the AP did not correct its error, and later introduced another inaccuracy suggesting the legislation addressed “partial-birth” abortion.
|