Dear New York Times,
What the hell is wrong with you? Did any one of your number — at any point in your lives — manage to pass a Journalism class? Did you ever even take a Journalism class? Ah, but perhaps you are unfamiliar with this strange and monstrous term, this newfangled ‘journalism’. Allow me to simplify: Was there ever in your professional existence a single moment when an authority figure sat you down and said, “Alright, thousands of young people protesting: That’s what we call newsworthy. Tens of thousands: Very newsworthy. And if you don’t cover a mass of protestors of around a hundred thousand and up, I’m firing your ass, and you can go back to writing columns for Southern Living.” No? Alright, I’ll admit I expected that. Did you at the very least watch the movie All The President’s Men? Something? Anything?
When the world’s most renowned newspaper fails to cover the March For Life — indeed, when it fails to even mention the massively controversial protest — I can only assume one of three things. It’s either (a) The Times are so bitter and grumpy over their loss of readership that they’ve decided to go out in flames, and simply not cover the news any more, (b) there was a sudden bout of journalistic illiteracy in their offices, or (c) they are not a newspaper, they are a miserable, antiquated megaphone for the Left. Or rather, as seems appropriate to the occasion — a muzzle for the pro-life movement. Given that this is the 5th year the March has miraculously managed to escape your radar, dear New York Times, I’m gonna go with (c). My generation has a word for timid folks owned and controlled by stronger, louder men. I’ll let you figure it out.
G.K. Chesterton, the world’s greatest columnist, wrote that “if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or silence.” I believe we’ve heard the silence. Onto the slanging, then: MSNBC’s coverage of the March For Life, featuring — you guessed it — Cecile Richards, the current president of Planned Parenthood!
Forgive me if I appear simple-minded, but it seems that you are under the impression that the March For Life is a celebration of the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. What other conclusion can I draw? The only speaker you bring on is the President of Planned Parenthood and you greet her with an “Almost 40 years, it’s amazing to think about it!”
Now it’s all very confusing — I know how that word ‘anniversary’ gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling in your stomach and makes you want to make love on air — but the March for Life is actually a rejection of the murder of infants.
When you cover the Occupy Wall Street movement, do you sit down a Wall Street executive and start your interview with “It’s been almost half a year now. Isn’t it amazing to think about?” Would you have covered MLK’s march by interviewing a white supremacist, asking him, “What are the challenges facing your movement today” as you asked Cecile Richards?
Then we had the Washington Post. Now I am thankful they admitted the existence of the March, but they couldn’t resist playing the game of “let’s-find-the-5-counter-protesters-and-make-it-look-like-it-was-an-ideological-exchange-not-a-massive-rebellion-against-abortion”.
I saw a grand total of one counter-protestor, a self-described troll. I went ahead and had an intelligent conversation with him:
Now obviously, I was only exposed to this one counter-protestor. There may very well have been striking intelligence elsewhere. My point — Washington Post — is simply this: Seeing as any counter-protest went entirely unnoticed by the majority of the Marchers, is it not a pathetically biased to use these pictures to crown your coverage? And let us not forget the Post’s extra special effort to make the pro-life movement look violent and angry: