It's
estimated that well over 100,000 people marched on Washington
yesterday for the annual March for Life (Tue. January 22, 2007). The
next day, Los Angeles Times stuffed
their version of
an AP report of the event on the bottom of p.A10 with a modest 410
words. (Tim Graham reported on WaPo's bias this morning
here.)
One phrase you won't find in the AP/Times articles is "pro-life."
Why? As Reuters widely reported in 2004 (here),
the paper adheres "to a strict Times policy banning the phrase
'pro-life' as offensive to people who support abortion." (The paper
appears only to allow the phrase if a person is being quoted using it.)
Does the AP have the same policy as well? The AP article alternates
between using the words "abortion foes" and "abortion opponents" to
label pro-lifers in its article. In their headline and the first
paragraph, the Times scrubbed the AP's use of the word "foes" and
replaced it with "opponents." What's going on? (In 2004, this ridiculous
policy of banning the phrase "pro-life" resulted in a hilarious
episode in which the Times scrubbed the words in an opera review
and replaced it with "anti-abortion" - even though the work had
nothing to do with abortion. Read about the hilarity
here.)
_+_+_+_+
Also in the Times today is
"Mom is at home in House, Senate," a dopey 974-word piece on the top
of page A9. The sub-headline touts, "Female politicians find that
talking about motherhood issues reassures traditionalist voters,
strategists say," but only Democratic politicians are
given as examples. ("Republican strategist" Dick Morris and his wife are
the only Republicans cited in the piece.)
But more glaring is this characterization of the left-wing group
Emily's List by the Times:
Ellen R. Malcolm, head of Emily's List, which works to propel
the careers of Democratic women, said she considered the past
year a watershed for political women ...
Emily's List does a lot more than merely try to "propel the careers
of Democratic women." They support candidates that are women, but they
must be completely "pro-choice." (From their site: "EMILY's List, the
nation's largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking
back our country from the radical right wing by electing
pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office."
Also: "The Bush Republicans have launched a sustained assault on the
right to choose and advances for women." (emphasis mine) (source).)
The Times has clearly attempted to "soften" the mission of an
obviously strident, liberal group. The Times has actually tagged Bill
O'Reilly with the "ultra-conservative" label (link);
but Emily's List doesn't get an "ultra-liberal"?!
Bias? Of course.