Posted on 11/11/2008 5:11:13 AM PST by rhema
In a weekend article, the ombudsman for the Washington Post admitted that the liberal newspaper had a bias for pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama during the elections. The paper followed the article with a report on how the President-elect would overturn "ideologically offensive" pro-life policies.
On Sunday, Deborah Howell admitted that readers of her paper "have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama."
"My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts," she admitted.
Howell's internal examination of the Post's coverage found the "op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13."
"There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement," Howell added. "Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain."
So how does one of the most biased newspapers in the nation follow up its election coverage of Obama? According to Kristen Fyfe of Newsbusters, it runs news articles on President-elect Obama with a heavy pro-abortion bias.
She noted the paper's coverage of the news that Obama would overturn pro-life policies of President Bush that stopped taxpayer-funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research -- policies the Post described as "controversial," "onerous," and "ideologically offensive."
"These are the words used by Washington Post reporters Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith to describe the pro-life policies of President George W. Bush," Fyfe writes. "The liberal slam came in an article about some of the early actions President-elect Obama will take when he is inaugurated next year."
The story revealed that Obama is "now consulting with liberal advocacy groups" in order to create a hit list of "the most onerous or ideologically offensive" regulatory and policy initiatives of the Bush administration.
"The Post also quoted Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards who said the country's leading abortion-provider is in near-daily communication with Obama's transition team and 'expects to see real change,'" Fyfe noted. "In other words, Planned Parenthood got the president they wanted."
"The Post story left no doubt as to the reporters' feelings on pro-life initiatives," she writes, pointing out how the paper said regulations "imposed" by President Bush include his "controversial" limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Post reporters used the word "reimposed" to describe Bush's action of bringing back the common-sense limits on public funding of groups that promote or perform abortions in other countries.
"And for them it is only President Bush who operates from a partisan agenda," she said, noting that the Post did not said Obama's new policies would be liberal or Democratic in nature while Bush's were labeled conservative or Republican or pleasing to "religious conservatives."
ACTION: Write the Washington Post at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Washington Post: “We admit our bias, but now here’s another heaping helping.”
So what does “Pro Choice” mean? The woman has the choice to kill a fetus. The fetus is not given a choice to live or die.
Sadly, some of the leaders of the prolife movement are offensive. Nothing like winning hearts while rhetorically bludgeoning minds.
God has a Pro-life bias.
Pro choice means human babies are different from any other form of matter.
A rock is always a rock.
A tree is always a tree.
A frog is always a frog.
A baby is not a human until and unless the mother wants it.
Even if it is born gasping and struggling to love.
Pro-Choice is used because it sounds better than Pro-Abortion which they do not want to be labeled as.
But the truth is that is what they are!
The term *pro-choice* is an oxymoron used to cover up what really takes place: legal murder.
Really? Obama's new policies will not be liberal? What crack pipe is she smoking? This man voted to allow babies to die that lived through botched abortions. You can find the info from a nurse that worked in this kind of clinic. (Either on Youtube or Myspace) The babies were taken away from the mom and put on a table in a cold dark room with no clothes or blankets and allowed to die alone! Nurses were not allowed to hold the babies or comfort them. Now, Obama was one of the few that voted to make this practice OK. And this is not liberal? Puhlease!!!
Communists became progressives which became liberals which is now chnaged to progressives.
Homosexuality is now gay.
And as you wrote, pro-abortion/anti-life is pro-choice to hide the truth.
Washington Post: “Resistance is futile!”
MURDER
I guess it's the primitive version of embryonic stem cell research. There is no end to the depths of human depravity.
“Sadly, some of the leaders of the prolife movement are offensive”
Not nearly offensive as a dead baby.
There are tactics which are better than others. All in all the pro-life movement is advancing and thats a good thing.
The Ten Commandments were very clear: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Or, at least portrayed that way in these neutral-papers...
This idea that the only reason that the Washington Post is ‘biased’ is because of the abortion issue is laughable! They are just trying to cover for their complete corruption in this campaign. Folks need to stop looking at this as ‘liberal bias’ and start looking for the offshore and Swiss bank accounts of the media elites!
Since the Vietnam era we have certainly witnessed some nonsensical but diabolical alliances.
Americans who oppose “killing our enemies” aka terrorists and other freedom hating barbarians.........but who fanatically support killing unborn US citizens...who might have lived to become scientists, physicians, philosophers, philanthropists and world leaders.
The human species is utterly mad!
You’d be hard pressed to come up with a defense against the assertion that the left’s ideology
actively, flauntingly, and defiantly violates all 10,
and encourages others to do so as well.
A Moonbat went off on me for mentioning Jill Stanek. The Moonbat brought up the eating fetus’ story saying it was BS, insane to consider it and asked what kind of people would do that. I said, the same people who think that Shark Fins and Rhino Horns will give them sexual prowness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.