What They Didn't Say - and Never Say - About the March for Life in Washington D.C.
Coverage for yesterday's March for Life wasn't quite as sparse as usual. It's likely that President Trump's speech in support of the marchers had something to do with that. He's the third president to express support for the event while it's happening, the other two being Reagan and Bush (II). But Trump distinguished himself by appearing to the crowd on video, as opposed to lobbing a phone call, the preferred method of Reagan and Bush. Also, his speech was not just a brief "thinking of you," but an attempt to provide substantive reflection on the issues to which the marchers were giving witness.
So we did a quick scan of the more-than-usual coverage and noticed that there's one thing consistent with past coverage: No one (or virtually no one) talks about the size of the crowd. Isn't that usual for events like this? Remember the "Million Man March" some years back? While it's not easy to determine exact numbers at such events, reports will usually provide some sort of guess. They're not necessarily right or even close. And sometimes (many times?) the number provided reflect a particular bias of the reporter or their media organization. But for this march, there was pretty much silence regarding size of the crowd. So I'll offer an educated guess: It was HUGE.
What's that based on? For one thing, the scant video and photos, some of which were culled from various blogs. For another, I've spoken with people who've attended these and they've indicated that the march goes on for a very long time and the gathering near the Supreme Court building is massive. What that translates into numbers I have no idea. But I think "huge" suffices.
As for MSM reporting, one common phrase I noticed was "anti-abortion" rally, along with the assertion that the March for Life was attended by "anti-abortion activists." A couple of points here: First, one could (and perhaps should) just as easily use the phrase "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion"; but the use of the latter, of course, reflects the bias of the reporter and the organization for which they work. As for "anti-abortion activists," the use of the term "activist" strikes me as overdone. If you've ever spoken with people who've attended these, you'll likely find they're just normal folks, by no means "activists" of any sort. (Besides, just what does the term "activist" mean anyway?)
We could go on, but there was one other description worth noting: The NBC report specified that the march opposes and wants to overturn the Supreme Court's "Roe v. Wade" decision. That's true. But it goes on to describe the decision as "reinforcing" the "Constitutional right" to abortion. That's false. There was no constitutional right to abortion before Roe v. Wade. Indeed, that decision created such a "right" - one that (not to beat a dead horse) - did not exist prior. One suspects that such a use of language in the NBC report is intended to plant and idea in the minds of unknowing recipients such that people will now think such a right existed prior. That would, of course, make it harder to "overturn" the Roe v. Wade decision, as it would (or might) be perceived as simply formally confirming aright to which every American is and has been entitled.
Am I making more out of the use of the word "reinforced" than was intended? I suspect not.
In any case, the March for Life proceeded, as it always does, peacefully, providing us with a powerful witness to the idea that all people have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hmm...Where have I read that phrase before?
So we did a quick scan of the more-than-usual coverage and noticed that there's one thing consistent with past coverage: No one (or virtually no one) talks about the size of the crowd. Isn't that usual for events like this? Remember the "Million Man March" some years back? While it's not easy to determine exact numbers at such events, reports will usually provide some sort of guess. They're not necessarily right or even close. And sometimes (many times?) the number provided reflect a particular bias of the reporter or their media organization. But for this march, there was pretty much silence regarding size of the crowd. So I'll offer an educated guess: It was HUGE.
What's that based on? For one thing, the scant video and photos, some of which were culled from various blogs. For another, I've spoken with people who've attended these and they've indicated that the march goes on for a very long time and the gathering near the Supreme Court building is massive. What that translates into numbers I have no idea. But I think "huge" suffices.
As for MSM reporting, one common phrase I noticed was "anti-abortion" rally, along with the assertion that the March for Life was attended by "anti-abortion activists." A couple of points here: First, one could (and perhaps should) just as easily use the phrase "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion"; but the use of the latter, of course, reflects the bias of the reporter and the organization for which they work. As for "anti-abortion activists," the use of the term "activist" strikes me as overdone. If you've ever spoken with people who've attended these, you'll likely find they're just normal folks, by no means "activists" of any sort. (Besides, just what does the term "activist" mean anyway?)
We could go on, but there was one other description worth noting: The NBC report specified that the march opposes and wants to overturn the Supreme Court's "Roe v. Wade" decision. That's true. But it goes on to describe the decision as "reinforcing" the "Constitutional right" to abortion. That's false. There was no constitutional right to abortion before Roe v. Wade. Indeed, that decision created such a "right" - one that (not to beat a dead horse) - did not exist prior. One suspects that such a use of language in the NBC report is intended to plant and idea in the minds of unknowing recipients such that people will now think such a right existed prior. That would, of course, make it harder to "overturn" the Roe v. Wade decision, as it would (or might) be perceived as simply formally confirming aright to which every American is and has been entitled.
Am I making more out of the use of the word "reinforced" than was intended? I suspect not.
In any case, the March for Life proceeded, as it always does, peacefully, providing us with a powerful witness to the idea that all people have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hmm...Where have I read that phrase before?
Comments