Eureka! "Abortion Bias Seeps Into the News"

The Los Angeles Times' landmark 1990 series on media's pro-abortion bias.

I actually have a harcopy edition of this four-part series; I thought of it not long ago, out of the blue, and I still wonder if I could ever find it again. :)

Highlights of the series' findings:

• The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.
• Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.
• Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.
• Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.
• Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.
• Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.
• Most media organizations, including the Associated Press , the world's largest news agency, use the label "pro-choice", the preferred label of abortion-rights advocates, but not "pro-life", the preferred label of those who oppose abortion. During the first nine months of 1989, the TV networks used "pro-choice" in 74% of their references to abortion-rights advocates and used "pro-life" in only 6% of their references to abortion opponents.
• Abortion opponents are often described as "conservatives"; abortion-rights supporters are rarely labeled as "liberals." Abortion opponents are sometimes identified as Catholics (or fundamentalist Christians), even when their religion is not demonstrably relevant to a given story; abortion-rights advocates are rarely identified by religion. Abortion opponents are often described as "militant" or "strident"; such characterizations are seldom used to describe abortion-rights advocates, many of whom can also be militant or strident -- or both.
• When the Supreme Court issued Roe, initial news accounts emphasized the part of the ruling that said a woman would be allowed to have an abortion without restriction during the first three months of pregnancy. Even now, some in the media write about Roe in terms that suggest it legalized abortion only during that first trimester, even though it made abortion legal for any reason throughout the first and second trimesters of pregnancy (and for broadly-defined "health" reasons even in the third).
• The Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York is probably the single-most widely quoted source for studies and statistics on abortion, for example, but the media rarely point out that the institute is special affiliate of Planned Parenthood of America, a major leader in the battle for abortion rights.
• The media is generally careful to include comments from abortion-rights advocates in stories about abortion protests, but coverage of abortion-rights activities sometimes fail to include balancing comments from abortion opponents.
• When Roman Catholic bishops individually spoke out on abortion or, collectively, hired a public relations firm to aid them in the battle against abortion, some in the media grumbled about the church's intrusion into the political arena. Similar media lamentations were forthcoming when bishops criticized (and raised the specter of ex-communication for) public officials who refuse to oppose abortion. But no such criticism was levied at the bishops in earlier years, when they endorsed a nuclear freeze or opposed Reagan Administration economic policies.
• The major media paid no attention to the discovery by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that two justices who had played a major role in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion had conceded, in private memos, that they knew they were "legislating policy and exceeding (the court's) authority as the interpreter, not the maker of law," as Woodward wrote.
• "When pro-choice candidates win, it is perhaps more easily accepted than it should be that their pro-choice position was the reason, and when pro-life candidates win, perhaps it is more easily accepted (than it should be) that that was really irrelevant to the race," says Douglas Bailey, an abortion-rights supporter who publishes the nonpartisan "Abortion Report," a daily compendium of news on abortion and politics. There have been a number of races in which the media said an abortion-rights advocate's victory showed the political strength of that movement when, in fact, most of the votes in the race actually went to anti-abortion candidates.

(Thanks John.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 09/27/02 10:53:40 PM
Categorized as Classic.

More on More on Gore

A reader writes:

In addition to the accuracy of the "deciding vote" claim, there's also considerable evidence about Gore bargaining for his vote. Check out this story for the basics.

Senator: Gore Bargained For Gulf-War Vote

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 09/27/02 10:31:45 PM
Categorized as Classic.

Hawkish Celebs?

Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise?

That's what the BBC said yesterday:

Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise have joined the list of celebrities making their views known on Iraq, speaking out in favour of President George Bush's stance.

The pair made their feelings known at a press conference in Rome, where they have been promoting the Italian release of the blockbuster Minority Report.....

Will somebody let me know when the retractions or corrections or clarifications are announced by Spielberg and Cruise? After they get back to Hollywood, most likely. Thanks!

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 09/27/02 06:28:54 PM
Categorized as Classic.

More on Gore

How some mainstream media stars are being less than forthright about Gore's position, past and present.

Today's MRC CyberAlert writes about Al Gore and his treatment in mainstream media since his speech Monday:

Update on coverage of Al Gore’s anti-Bush Iraq policy speech: While CBS’s Dan Rather had highlighted how Gore charged that he felt “betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield,” in Iraq which left Saddam Hussein in power, FNC’s Brit Hume noted how back in 1991 Gore had said the opposite, specifically saying President George H.W. Bush should not be blamed since the “consensus” was only for “pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.”

Naturally, Dan Rather did not update his viewers about Gore’s hypocrisy.

Plus, while also ignoring Gore’s hypocrisy, CNBC’s Brian Williams tried to add heft to Gore’s remarks by reminding viewers of how they came from “the number one popular vote-getter in the last election,” while ABC’s Claire Shipman emphasized how Gore “noted proudly yesterday that he cast the deciding the vote” for the Persian Gulf War.

But if a resolution wins by more than one vote, as did this one (52 to 47 on January 12, 1991), then no one vote is “the deciding vote.” In fact, ten Democrats supported the resolution and the Washington Post reported on January 13, 1991 that Gore was “the last of the group to announce his position” -- meaning he waited to see which side would win before casting his then definitely non-deciding vote.

And, one more update item, in drafting his speech, Gore consulted with actor Rob Reiner, “Meathead” on All in the Family.

Now the details about what I’ve just summarized above....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 09/27/02 01:29:01 PM
Categorized as Classic.