By Bernadette Easler
Do you think the media presents a fair and relatively unbiased picture of life issues today?
I am having trouble finding any news outlet (print or television) willing to address the real issue when it comes to abortion: babies are being killed.
An article on Lifenews.com by Colleen Raezler on June 15, 2009 asked if ABC stands for Abortion Broadcasting Company.
She wrote this after ABC featured late term abortionists on World News Sunday following George Tiller’s murder. The feature “quickly revealed itself as a propaganda piece and hyped up the fear of violence against abortion providers.”
The procedure was described as “really a miscarriage of a stillborn fetus” conveniently leaving out the fact that they kill the baby first before removing it. Except for a short sound bite from the Family Research Council, no other view was presented.
The gruesome details of this horrific procedure were omitted entirely.
Print media is biased too.
And it is not a new phenomenon. My research indicates this problem is 20 years old. David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times did a comprehensive study in 1990 which found the press “often favors abortion rights in its coverage even though journalists say they make every effort to be fair.”
The study finds repeated bias against pro-lifers, and subtle institutional strategies that favor the pro-abortion movement, including:
- Using language and images that frame the debate in a way that favors abortion rights.
- Quoting abortion rights advocates more frequently and more favorably than opponents.
- Ignoring or giving minimal attention to events favorable to abortion opponents.
- Giving more prominent play to electoral/legislative victories by pro-abortion advocates.
- Favoring abortion rights in its op-ed pages by a margin of more than 2 to 1.
- Ignoring First Amendment rights violations when raised by abortion opponents.
He found television is probably even more biased (given its structure and time constraints) and gives this example.
When the Supreme Court ruled in the Webster case (which gave states more latitude in regulating abortion), ABC News termed the decision a “major setback for abortion rights.” Shaw correctly asks, “Couldn’t it also have been called a major victory for abortion opponents?”
Even the words themselves are biased. The media refuse to use the word “baby,” and instead use the term “fetus” which is preferred by pro-abortionists. The words pro-life are rarely used to describe us; we are called abortion opponents or anti-abortion. Yet the more favorable pro-choice is widely used for the killers.
It is 20 years later and I believe it is worse now. You know what I’d like to see?
The facts; just the facts.
How about someone reporting that more than 3,000 babies die every day in our country as punishment for others’ actions?
How about reporting on the continuing advances in pre-natal surgeries and treatments for premature babies?
How about showing some pictures of babies killed by abortion?
The facts speak for themselves. Why won’t our news media report the facts?
GRTL would like to encourage you the reader to contact your local newspaper and submit editorials, engage on blog discussions online, start a discussion on Facebook or Twitter, and get the conversation going. If pro-lifers are not talking about sanctity of life issues, then who will? If you would like to find out about how to engage the media more, then contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Also, if you have an article that shows media bias, then send it in. Let’s get the discussion going on the issues that truly matter the most:Life Issues.