I recieved this as part of an email from Family Leader Network. I've pasted it here rather than the link because the site is currently down. Discuss.
Some Marchers are More Equal than Others
A key way media expresses bias is by simply ignoring stories they don't want to highlight. This was clear last week when 200,000 people from all across the United States gathered on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade to protest the decision making abortion legal. A peaceful march, filled with children in strollers and people of all ages, the crowd undulated down the streets and was hard to ignore. Unless you were a member of the press. Few major stories appeared. Why, after all, draw attention to such a swell of heartfelt support if you think it will further a cause you don't believe in. You know, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it..."
On the other hand, only 10,000 people attended the anti-war march last weekend and according to one attendee, "There was an army of reporters and their cameras blocking the stage of speakers from the clear view of the surging throngs who packed in behind and around the sides of their platforms."
Coverage of the event made the front page of most major dailies and news shows. Yet, as the Family Research Council reported, "for all the media the small demonstration received, few news outlets reported the true headline of the day." According to The Hill, protesters were allowed to take the Capitol steps and "exercise their free speech rights" and spray the west Capitol terrace and the grounds with graffiti. Police who might have stopped them were ordered to fall back and no one was arrested.
Perhaps the police were trying to avoid violence from the anti-war folks.
""It is my understanding protesters were allowed to spray paint the Capitol steps and deface buildings around the area while Capitol Police were instructed to not arrest anyone engaging in these unlawful acts...I would like to know if it is in fact true that Capitol Police were given specific guidance regarding the protests, and if so, why were they instructed to allow these acts of vandalism?" wrote Representative Wayne Allard (R-Co). "As ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, I am requesting an immediate meeting with you to discuss the facts surrounding the defacing of our Nation's Capitol."
Graffiti has been cleaned up, but the questions remain
I think that there is definitely a bias. For one thing, it is economically advantageous to them to report sensationalistic stories. But even beyond that, they have a definite liberal bias. For instance, with the recent scandal about a republican lawmaker doing inappropriate things with pages. They totally ignored that a democratic lawmaker had been guilty of the same thing some years back, was even denied his seat by a democratic congress, but now is in office again.
So, why is it ok for a democrat to do inappropriate things with pages, but not for a republican?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
The answer is in the value of people. Some people are simply more valuable than others.
Obviously those people who disagree with Roe Vs. Wade aren't as important as those who protest the war.
Antiwar people are close to godhood, while those who dispute enlightened abortion are ranked somewhere below child molesters and ambiguously dressed white men without jobs...
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 14:41, 2007-01-31
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Well, clearly, the spray painting was part of the new minimum wage increase package pushed by Pelosi and the Democrat leaders of congress. See, by allowing the spray painting to occur, it provided jobs to at least a dozen people... the factory worker who assembled the spray paint can, the chemical worker who formulated the spray paint itself, the capital police who were there to take orders, the press corp members who had something to leave the office to report on, and the hard working corp of union maintenance people who were called in to sand blast the paint off stuff and the tradesmen and tradeswomen who then repaired the damage from the sandblasting, and lastly, the groundskeepers who swept up all the mess afterwards...
Marcher bias? Only if you consider there exists a media bias or a social agenda bias and it isn't some mythical creature that comes from the belly of the Republican party's beast...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I had someone tell me before, in all seriousness, that the media has a strong conservative bias. And this was before Fox news channel, so they can't have been referring to that.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I can believe that. I think in the days before Fox News, and particularly in the years prior to say Reagon, the media in general were better at "restraining" themselves and trying to be objective in journalism. So, relative to today, sure that could be viewed as "more conservative" when they weren't looking for the latest thing to boost their ratings, increase market share, and the like to the extent they do today. That drive has turned just about every "traditional" news source (ABC, NBC, CBS, and even CNN now) into the equivalent of tabloid journalism.
But, the problem with the media (and hence the reason there is bias shown) is that the conglomerates are not "public" entities. They are owned by very, very rich people who have political agendas they back. Let's just say I won't be surprised on the day that the owner(s) of Fox News change the agenda they back if it is more profitable for them to promote a liberal view point. In fact, I started seeing a "softening" of stance across the board by Fox News folks within days of the mid-term elections and Republican loss of control in Congress.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
