In its coverage of the March for Life (if there was any coverage at all) did your local newspaper or TV station convey the impression that there were a few thousands participants? That the marchers were mostly middle-aged men? That there were many pro-abortion counter-demonstrators along the parade route? If you had any such reports-- and you probably did-- then you were a victim of media malpractice.
Video cameras are wonderful things. "Facts," as John Adams said, "are stubborn things." A reporter might write that the March consisted of a few thousand grumpy old men, but if you see the pictures-- better, the videos-- you know that's nonsense.
But wait! you ask. Video cameras have only been readily available to ordinary folks in the last few years, but television news crews have had them for decades. Why haven't we seen unedited footage of the March for Life on the network news? Good question.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: ltoscan2645 -
Feb. 03, 2010 9:42 AM ET USA
In Canada, we have a subsidized public TV network, the CBC. I wrote to them last year complaining that the annual March for Life, held in our capital city of Ottawa, received no national coverage, I was told that was due to a heavy news day, I pointed out that other much smaller marches had received coverage, I was told that the March had received coverage by the local CBC station and that was sufficient. Last month ONE person placed a banner at the Parliament building,he got national coverage