Media Research Center has this article on the difference in coverage of protests.
When is a protest worthy of coverage? Why, when it's an anti-war protest, of course!
On Monday, January 22, none of the networks sent a Washington reporter a few blocks down to the March for Life. CBS and NBC offered brief anchor snippets noting “both sides” of the abortion debate would protest on the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, ignoring that one side brings tens of thousands to Washington, and the other side numbers in the tens. ABC did nothing.
But over the weekend, the Big Three networks were much more eager to publicize tens of thousands of protesters in Washington just six days later for a different cause: against the war in Iraq and in favor of the impeachment of President Bush. The Big Three networks offered five full reports and six anchor briefs on the Bush-bashing rally. So the contrast in stories was 11 to 2, or if you only count full stories instead of anchor briefs, the contrast was 6 to 0.
There is an argument that could be made that the March for Life is an annual event and the anti-war protests was a one-time event, making it more deserving of coverage. I'll buy that the anti-war protests deserved coverage as a single event, but shouldn't the March for Life get more coverage than a mere mention? I guess not, if you don't think it's any big deal.
|