cluelessness on the March
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 26, 2010
Let's see, now: Who would you expect to find participating in the annual March for Life?
Take your time with the answer. The mass media has had 36 years to ponder the question; you can take 36 seconds, at least.
Are you ready? The correct answer is: pro-lifers!
Did you have it right? Then give yourself a Pulitzer, or something, because the mass media didn't do so well.
Consider the Newsweek contributor who wondered why most March for Life participants seem to oppose abortion. The same columnist also made the preposterous claim that few young women participate in the March-- a claim that can be refuted by anyone with a camera, or anyone who attends the event. Shaking his head in disbelief at the Newsweek piece, Joseph Lawler of the American Spectator commented:
But I am still wrestling with the idea that A) it's possible that there's someone out there-- anywhere-- that does not understand that pro-choice feminists are not participating in the March for Life and B) that Newsweek chose this person to write about today's protests.
It's astonishing for sure, Joe; I'll grant you that. But didn't you learn at the Lawler family dinner table that when it comes to the abortion issue, the major media outlets are as thoroughly lost as you would be if you woke up tomorrow morning on the planet Zork? They don't know the language, don't know the people, don't know the history, don't know anything. The Newsweek pundit was not alone. There was also Rick Sanchez, reporting for CNN:
As far as we can tell, following this protest on this day, the bulk of the protesters that we have seen here.... seem to be anti-abortion activists. We've seen more pro-life signs...
Gee, d'ya think? The people who participate in the March for Life are mostly in favor of... life? Who'da known?
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($124,738 to go):
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: sparch -
Jan. 29, 2010 11:24 AM ET USA
Chestertonian, This is exactly the point where their ignorance shines through, as if mere semantics can alter the reality of what abortion is. Then, trying to justify abortion through the use of redefining an unborn life, as you have described. Utter shock sets in when what they say is not embraced as fact.
Posted by: Chestertonian -
Jan. 29, 2010 12:09 AM ET USA
Two responses to normnuke and sparch: this isn't a beginning; the 'concerted effort' began prior to Roe v Wade, and most of the opposition refuse to use the term pro-life at all. We are at best 'anti-choice', and they are 'pro-choice', the very terms conferring a negative aspect on our advocacy. This goes in lockstep with their other uses of semantics, such as 'products of conception' or 'uterine contents' rather than 'baby'. It is easier to justify destroying an amorphous mass than a human.
Posted by: sparch -
Jan. 27, 2010 3:43 PM ET USA
I tend to think that in trying to distort and deceive they expose their ignorance. This goes for most people who try to publicly espouse the pro-abortion ideology.
Posted by: -
Jan. 27, 2010 12:44 PM ET USA
I am with extreme. I think what we are seeing here is the beginning of a concerted effort on the part of the Democratic party and their toadies in the media to turn 'pro-life' into a slur.
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Jan. 26, 2010 10:21 PM ET USA
I guess I am less charitable. I think the incoherence and ignorance is only feigned and they simply do intend to distort and deceive their dwindling audience.
Posted by: Paladin -
Jan. 26, 2010 10:06 PM ET USA
We want a free and independent press. No one said they had to be intelligent.