MediaWatch: May 1992
Table of Contents:
- MediaWatch: May 1992
- Favoring "Abortion Rights"
- NewsBites: No Homeless Hype
- Revolving Door: Brown Bombast
- Looting a Rational Response to a Decade of Greed
- Blackmail and Intimidation of Sources: OK with PBS
- Actually Backed Thomas
- ABC and PBS Act as Co-Conspirators
- A Half Million Here?
- Janet Cooke Award: PBS on the October Surprise: Oops
Favoring "Abortion Rights"
Abortion resurfaced on the national agenda in April, from the April 5 pro-abortion march on Washington to the Operation Rescue protests in Buffalo. In the wake of April's abortion headlines, MediaWatch analysts surveyed every abortion story during the month on ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's World News, and the NBC Nightly News. In 49 stories, the networks not only favored pro-abortion spokesmen, but continued to present its coverage in the language and symbolism of the pro-abortion movement. Among the findings:
TALKING HEADS. Pro-abortion soundbites outnumbered anti-abortion soundbites by a count of 55 to 31, or 64 percent in favor of the pro-abortion camp. CNN's soundbite count actually tilted in favor of those opposed to abortion, a close 14 to 13. The Big Three networks favored pro-abortion sources by more than 2 to 1. CBS skewed the count the most, 13 to 4, or 76 percent of its sound-bites; ABC, 13 to 5, or 72 percent; and NBC perfected the 2 to 1 ratio with a head count of 16 to 8. This imbalance occurred even though the networks aired more stories prompted by the two-week Buffalo protest than the one-day pro-abortion march.
LABELS. Since the 1989 Webster decision, reporters have echoed the arguments of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Before Webster, the buzzword was "choice" and the adjective was "pro-choice"; since Webster, the buzzword is "rights," and the adjective became "abortion-rights." The 1989 Washington Post Deskbook on Style marked the change: "The terms right-to-life and pro-life are used by advocates in the abortion controversy to buttress their arguments. They should generally be used as part of an organization's title and in quotations, but not as descriptive adjectives in the text. Use abortion-rights advocates for those who support freedom of choice in the matter, anti-abortion for those who oppose it." (Italics theirs.)
Of 52 labels showered on the pro-abortion side, 41 were "abortion rights." Now out of fashion is "pro-choice" with nine mentions, except at CBS, which used the label seven times. Only CNN slipped from politically correct terminology, using the term "abortion supporters" once and "pro-abortion" once. By contrast, the pro-life forces were completely denied their most favored labels. "Pro-life" and "right-to-life" were never used by the networks in April. (A 1989 MediaWatch study found the two terms applied 27 times in the last four months of 1988.) Instead, "anti-abortion" reigned, with 36 mentions out of 45. On six occasions, reporters used the terms "anti-abortion rights," "against abortion rights," and "opposed to abortion rights," which is the semantic equivalent of "anti-choice."
GRAPHICS. In the book Unreliable Sources, left-wing media critics Martin Lee and Norman Solomon charged: "On TV, when an anchor reports the latest abortion news, a common background graphic is a well-developed fetus...The logo is in sync with tendencies to push women out of the mental pictures we have of the abortion issue." But network graphics in April 1992 did the opposite: they emphasized women and deemphasized the fetus. In 47 stories, 21 used graphic screens next to the anchor. Of those, 17 featured a feminist symbol, the gender sign for female, a circle with a cross underneath. None pictured a fetus. NBC used the female symbol in introducing eight of its nine stories; CNN, in seven of 18 (and not in an eighth story); and ABC, in 2 of 9.
CENSORSHIP. Some of the same networks that decried how the "Nintendo" war in the Persian Gulf didn't show enough footage of corpses censored Indiana candidate Michael Bailey's campaign ad showing dead fetuses. Three networks aired stories on April 20 (NBC passed), but didn't all treat it the same.
The most dramatic was CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews: "Michael Bailey, an anti-abortion candidate for Congress in Indiana today began airing what cold be the most tasteless ad ever shown on television. What's more, he's a candidate, protected against censorship, no one can stop him." CBS tried to stop him by censoring the fetus pictures. Andrews continued: "TV stations in Indianapolis and Louisville are questioning whether Bailey is abusing the law, whether under FCC rules, any zealot with a candidate's filing fee can put anything on TV...Tastelessness in television may not be new, but this case is unique." Like CBS, CNN also censored the pictures of fetuses with a big gray screen.
By contrast, ABC and reporter Chris Bury served as a model of balance, airing the ad in its entirety, getting a statement from both sides, and ending: "When it comes to politics, truth in advertising is not for the government or TV stations to determine. That is a matter for opposing candidates to debate and for the voters to decide." That kind of fundamental balance is exactly what's often missing in network coverage of abortion.
A HALF MILLION HERE? The National Organization for Women's April 5 pro-abortion rally drew 500,000 people, the networks reported based on a D.C. police estimate. But the U.S. Park Police, whose counts are usually used by the media, released their estimate a day late: 250,000.
But some reporters ignored the count even after its release. On the April 6 NBC Nightly News, reporter Bob Kur asserted: "This year, with freedom to choose threatened as never before, yesterday there were more marchers than ever before: half a million." (The April 27 Newsweek called it "one of the largest mass demonstrations in this country's history.")
