Usually when I argue with liberals about media bias, I bring up abortion as the most prominent example.
The argument I make is about the terminology used in the MSM to describe pro-lifers and pro-choicers. For the record, I'm in favor of letting everybody call themselves whatever they want. It's a courtesy we give other organizations and it seems logical to allow groups to determine their own descriptions as opposed to journalists "interpreting" what their "real" identities are.
There are a few examples other than abortion where this issue comes up. The most frequent is in describing dictators. Journalists rarely call Fidel Castro a dictator and they uniformly call other thugs "president," since that's what the thug has called himself.
If only journalists were so deferential to pro-life groups and called those groups "pro-life" they way they do. It would be one less example of left-leaning media bias. But no, journalists feel an obligation to "clarify" what pro-lifers really are: anti-abortion. Notice that they don't feel this urgency to clarify what Castro means when he used the term "president." They just accepted it.
But as surely as the rooster crows in the morning, journalists feel obligated to call pro-lifers "anti-abortion" or something similar. Take this headline on ABCNews' annual story about the anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
Bush Hails Abortion Foes at Annual Rally
And then there's the lede:
President Bush marked the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision Monday, telling thousands of abortion foes he shares their goal of seeing "the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected into law."
For the record, foe means a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy, according to dictionary.com.
I'm sure some pro-choice supporters would say this is an accurate description of pro-lifers but I'm also certain that it isn't the way the pro-lifers would describe themselves. Not that journalists want to be accurate or anything.
|