Dan Gainor took the media to task on their reporting on pro-life activists, including the March for Life. They rarely call them pro-life, because that’s a positive term. Instead they’re called anti-abortion, or anti-reproductive rights. The same thing goes with every other issue. If one is an advocate of the second amendment, then one is anti-gun safety, or pro-gun – meaning in favor of mass murder. If one is for sound fiscal policy, then one is anti-poor people, or worse yet, racist. If one is for a strong military, then one is pro-war. No matter what the issue is, the media frames it on their terms, which directly line up with the terms of the Democrats.buy valium without prescription
Here’s Gainor on how they report on the abortion debate:
buy tramadol no prescriptionvalium for sale
This year’s March for Life, on Friday, Jan. 25, marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It also highlights how far the media will go to avoid using anything positive to describe people opposed to baby killing. Marchers get called “opponents” and “anti-abortion activists,” not “pro-life.”buy phentermine online no prescription
The march showcases the strength of the pro-life cause despite the media’s ongoing support of abortion. It’s an event where hundreds of thousands show up each year to protest in support of life that thousands of journalists either ignore or denigrate.buy klonopin online
It’s so overt that The New York Times has ignored the march five years running (or walking in this case) in its print edition. And the network news shows are so put off by the concept of pro-life anything that they’ve only said the word “life” twice in the last 10 years when referencing either the march or the Roe v. Wade anniversary. That’s twice in 22 stories.
It gets worse.
klonopin online no prescription
A recent interview by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell illustrated the “life” language prejudice pervading broadcast media. When Republican strategist Juleanna Glover identified herself as “deeply pro-life” in an interview, Mitchell interrupted, “Well, what I would call anti-abortion,” and added, “to use the term that I think is more value neutral.”
That’s the American media for you – killing children needs to be “value neutral.”
The Associated Press is responsible for some of this problem, institutionalizing the bias with its famous style manual. Journalists should “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice,” according to The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook’s 44th edition.
Read the whole thing, it’s pretty much a playbook on how the
left wing supposedly neutral media operates. Not only do they selectively choose what they do report, when they report on those who aren’t on their side – the side of the Democrats – they change the language so that even their supposedly neutral reports are biased. There are too many examples to even list. Just turn on your local or network news any day of the week and watch the political coverage.
Think about it. Do you think that without a compliant media a radical like Barack Obama could have been elected to a first term, let alone a second term after such an abysmal record? Four years and the economy remains stagnant. Four years and millions more have signed up for welfare. Four years and millions more dropped out of the labor market. Four years and the national debt went up by about $6 trillion.
As much as most of the Republicans annoy me, I have to say, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. They’re vilified. They can give speeches that are well received, but if the media doesn’t accurately report on those speeches, what good does it do? They end up just singing to the choir. The times they don’t cave into Obama the sycophants in the media never fail to report how he and his allies say they’re holding the aggrieved group of the day hostage.
What do you even do about it? Just the other day a reporter admitted that his colleagues “swoon over” Obama. These are the people that are supposed to be watchdogs on the people in power. Instead they’re lapdogs. Lapdogs who inform voters. It’s truly frightening.
I guess we in the “new media” just keep doing what we do while hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst. The 47% or so of Americans who didn’t vote for this debacle could help by boycotting the old media.
Throughout history we’ve seen tyrants with evil intentions rise to power because the people didn’t understand their true intentions. Sure, we can blame the tyrants. But what about the complacent, if not activist, media? Our only other hope at this point is that no matter how much the media covers for them, the Democrats’ overreach is waking people up.
Update: Maybe our side should just be like Daniel Hannan all the time, every waking moment of their lives.