The Times did improve on its track record: This year's march was the subject of two photos in the newspaper, as opposed to being totally ignored in print the previous four years. The Times is far more eager to publicize protests in support of liberal causes, no matter how puny, like amnesty for illegals.
By
Clay Waters
January 25, 2011 - 11:28am
Before the Monday march, the Times contented itself with a single sentence in a blog post Saturday night by Ashley Southall about Obama flashing his pro-choice credentials, "Obama Marks Anniversary of Roe v. Wade [1]." The quote marks suggest Southall even flubbed the name of the rally (it's "March for Life," not "Right to Life"), a small sign of the media's general ignorance of the conservative movement.
The president's statement came as anti-abortion demonstrators began arriving in Washington for a "Right to Life" rally on Monday, marking the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.
Tuesday's print edition did not feature an actual news story of the thousands who marched in frigid weather, just two photos at the top of page A12 with the caption "Abortion Opponents Rally On the National Mall," above a single three-sentence paragraph [2] description that concluded with a link to eight photographs online. But that's actually a vast improvement; the Times in print absolutely ignored the March for Life in 2010, 2009 [3], and 2008 (a 300-word story marked the 2007 March for Life on January 23 [4] of that year).
The Times is far more eager to publicize protests in support of liberal causes, no matter how puny. When four or five protesters march in support of the doomed Dream Act to grant amnesty to illegal immigrant students, the Times is there [5].
By contrast, the Washington Post treated this year's March for Life as print-worthy, with a pretty good story [6] by Michelle Boorstein and Ben Pershing relegated to the front of the paper's Metro section.
You can follow Times Watch on Twitter [7].