Networks cover giant pro-life rally without using the word “life.” Everything is a propaganda war now and the abortion industry prefers that pro-life people be called “anti-choice.” Or “anti-abortion.” And the network news people are mindless drones so they’ve surrendered to the point where they refuse to use the word “life” even while staring at giant 40-foot-wide Pro Life banners.

Leave a Reply

9 Comments on "Networks cover giant pro-life rally without using the word life"

Notify of

January 25, 2013 7:03 pm

the abortion industry prefers that pro-life people be called “anti-choice.” Or “anti-abortion.”

How about “anti-death”?

January 25, 2013 8:32 pm

“This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible.”

Of course, that’s NOT what they do… when it’s something they don’t approve of, say like gun ownership, they’re as unclear, inconsistent and pejorative as they need to be to obfuscate the issue and bend opinion to their way of thinking. But, if they actually practiced what they preached, they would be journalists and not journ0lists.

January 26, 2013 6:48 am

March for Life is clear and they have been consistent. Labeling someone anti is suppose to be neutral. They hate Pro-Life because that makes them Pro-Death.

Progressive Hemrrhoid
January 25, 2013 9:24 pm

And the Lame Stream Media wonder why they are getting their asses kick by the Internet.

January 26, 2013 2:26 am

Actually, their spin is rather impressive. Sure it’s outrageous, but to beat them we need to learn from them.

This is also a great article for those independents who don’t see media bias.

January 26, 2013 1:10 pm

Hey, just be glad they covered it at all.

January 26, 2013 4:07 pm

Despite what Andrea Mitchell said, “anti-abortion” is not a neutral term. The “anti” gives a subtle negativity to Pro-Life people. They’re not positive people for life, they’re mean, nasty people screeching against abortion. “Pro-Choice” is not a neutral term either. “Pro” gives them a positive connotation and “Choice” makes it seem like they’re open to both sides and neutral. But how neutral are people who fight against minor restrictions which would give women more time and information? Truly they are Pro-Abortion. As PsychoDad said, it’s progress they even cover the march at all. When I used to watch CBS more, there were a number of years when Dan Rather or Katie Couric didn’t cover it. I attended the March For Life in 1993. Unfortunately, I also had to stomach the first Clinton Inauguration with a group of high school marchers who were also viewing the inauguration as a historical event. As I was marching I thought: “How do the media ignore this big of a throng marching in Washington, D.C.?” That was one of the biggest years for the March because of Clinton’s inauguration. One estimate of the March For Life that year was that it contained 250,000. Even in… Read more »

January 31, 2013 1:20 pm

The crowd at last Friday’s March For Life in Washington, D.C. was estimated at 200,000. A gun control march there the next day drew about 1,000 marchers. CBS and ABC didn’t cover the March For Life but did cover the gun control march. It’s beyond bias, it’s media corruption at this point. Last year’s March For Life at the beginning of an election year drew an estimated 400,000.

February 1, 2013 5:04 am

They will only cover what supports the Administration’s policy.