Moving Beyond Bias to Censorship Over the summer action on important Pro-Life bills was taken by the U.S. Congress and President Bush. On July 18th, the U.S. Senate passed HR 2175, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act by unanimous consent. The next day, not one of the daily Chicago newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Southtown, Daily Herald) covered the passage of this bill even though it was the first Pro-Life bill considered by the full Senate since Tom Daschle became Majority Leader a year earlier. For the Chicago area, this bill has even more significance because of the key role nurse Jill Stanek’s testimony played in getting the bill passed. Jill worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL until she was fired for her continuing efforts to end the practice of live birth abortion at the hospital. When the U.S. House passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in March, 2002, the Associated Press (AP) used the word “fetus” to describe premature infants after birth. AP received criticism from Pro-Life members of Congress about their inappropriate use of words. The AP story about the Senate passage of HR 2175 worked very hard to not call these babies anything at all, referring to them only as “live births.” None of the Chicago papers even printed this AP story. On July 24th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a ban on partial birth abortion by 274-151. The legislation now awaits consideration in the U.S. Senate. Again, not one of the four major Chicago area newspapers reported on the bill’s passage. Before the end of July, August 5th was scheduled as the date for President Bush to sign the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into law. His staff invited Jill Stanek to be present at the signing ceremony in Pittsburg. IRLC issued a press release to make sure the media was aware of this important event. The Daily Southtown did an excellent job of covering the signing of this bill, including getting comments from Jill Stanek. The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times each provided a small story that can best be classified as inadequate coverage. The Daily Herald did not take any action to cover the story. They used an Associated Press story with a headline about the miners who were saved being visited by the President. Buried deep in the story was a brief reference to the bill signing. In summary, three extremely newsworthy events for supporters of life received either no or very limited coverage in the Chicago newspapers. The limited coverage came only in the third case after prodding from Pro-Life organizations to cover it. I can only conclude that this is more than news bias. It is news censorship! Please keep in mind that you will not be kept informed on Pro-Life issues unless you rely on alternate sources. The IRLC web site and newsline are offered as alternate sources.
|