MediaWatch: January 1998
Table of Contents:
Subtly Shifting the Spectrum Leftward
Over the last decade, studies of ideological labeling in print reporting have revealed that journalists often identify conservative groups as conservative, but rarely call liberal groups liberal, which suggests that reporters are sending their readers a subtle warning of partisanship about one side and a subtle reassurance of nonpartisanship about the other. Does this pattern of suggesting political battles are fought between conservatives and nonpartisans extend to the abortion debate?
As abortion advocates celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, MediaWatch analysts explored the labeling of groups active in the abortion debate. Using the Nexis news data retrieval system, analysts located every news story in 1995 and 1996 on four pro-life groups, and compared them to stories on four abortion advocacy groups in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post. In 1,050 news stories, the pro-life groups were described as "conservative" or some variant in 178 out of 378 news stories (47 percent), while abortion advocates were labeled "liberal" or a similar term in only 19 of 682 stories (2.8 percent).
The pro-life groups’ labeling percentage was lowered by the National Right to Life Committee, whose self-explanatory name might have contributed to its comparative lack of labeling, with only seven ideological labels in 119 news stories (6 percent). USA Today did not apply a conservative label in 22 stories. One label came in a Washington Post story on activist Kay Coles James, who "became nationally known as a champion of conservative family values" during stints with the NRLC and the Bush administration.
With the NRLC sample removed, the three pro-life groups remaining were labeled "conservative" or "religious right" in 171 of 259 news stories, or 66 percent. The Family Research Council attracted 115 conservative labels in 183 stories (63 percent). The June 17, 1996 USA Today carried a story by Richard Benedetto on how Bob Dole might create "a nasty confrontation with those on the right who see no room for compromise [on abortion] — Pat Buchanan and the Family Research Council’s Gary Bauer among them." Benedetto added: "Many moderate and independent voters already believe the GOP is caught in the grips of extremist elements hard to the right."
Concerned Women for America was tagged with an ideological label in 17 of 24 news stories about them (71 percent). The October 12, 1995 Washington Post noted "In 1989 and 1993, the Democratic Party used state law to stop the distribution of [voter] guides by conservative groups that included Concerned Women for America."
Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum drew the most ideological warnings, in 39 of 52 news stories (75 percent). USA Today labeled Eagle Forum in all ten news stories on the group. The Washington Post noted Schlafly was part of the "conservative alliance that challenged Dole’s tolerance language, the group that became better known as the ‘fearsome foursome.’"
By contrast, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) drew the highest percentage of "liberal" labeling, with seven tags in 131 news stories (5 percent). The New York Times never employed a liberal label in 47 stories. Five of NARAL’s seven labels came from The Washington Post. A May 18, 1995 USA Today story by Richard Benedetto noted NARAL as one of the "liberal lobbies which the [Christian] coalition has jousted with from time to time."
Only one New York Times story kept the Feminist Majority Foundation from going unlabeled in 38 stories (2.6 percent). A March 2, 1995 New York Times story was headlined "Defending Affirmative Action, Liberals Try to Place the Debate’s Focus on Women." The Washington Post gave FMF no label in eight stories despite calling them "a group that advises abortion clinics on security."
Despite being the nation’s largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood was described as liberal in only seven stories out of 315 (2.2 percent). USA Today never applied in a liberal label in 64 stories, even as the newspaper noted Planned Parenthood’s New York affiliate bought an ad charging conservative evangelist Pat Robertson "broadcast the words which have caused a rampage of anti-choice terrorism." Two of the liberal labels referred to spokesman Ann Lewis, who came to Planned Parenthood from the Democratic National Committee. New York Times religion reporter Peter Steinfels called Planned Parenthood an "obvious nominee" for the "life-style left."
The National Organization for Women drew the lowest percentage with four labels in 198 news stories (2 percent). In a May 5, 1996 Washington Post story, reporter Thomas B. Edsall wrote that North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Harvey Gantt, "claiming the backing of the AFL-CIO, NOW, most black organizations and gay interest groups, is carrying the banner for the liberals." A story in the March 19, 1995 New York Times contrasted an unlabeled NOW with new conservative allies: "Kim Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organization for Women, which is working with conservative groups that oppose the welfare cutoffs."
The Times didn’t add a label in a story on an April 1996 "Fight the Right" rally at which NOW founder Gloria Steinem sounded the alarm: "An extremist ultra right-wing has taken control of one of the two major centrist political parties. They are racist, they are sexist, they are homophobic."
The lack of newspaper labeling came despite millions of dollars in the last election cycle on behalf of liberal Democratic candidates by the political action committees run by NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood. Journalists have dissected the Republican rift over abortion as pro-life "conservatives" vs. "moderates" who support even partial-birth abortions. In addition, the newspapers’ pattern of labeling presents the pro-life movement as "conservative" (or "ultra-right") and the advocates of abortion on demand as moderate or nonpartisan. All in all, this labeling inequality represents a dramatic media-induced leftward shift in the political spectrum.
