Stop whining.
Posted on 01/23/2009 10:58:12 AM PST by AIM Freeper
More than 100,000 people assembled in Washington, D.C. yesterday for the 36th Annual March for Life.
But as far as The New York Times is concerned, it never happened.
If 50,000 feminists had gathered on the Mall in D.C., to demand passage of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, it would have been above-the-page-one-fold coverage in The Times, accompanied with an aerial photo of the crowd.
If 25,000 environmentalists had congregated in our nation’s capital to call for the deindustrialization of America, to combat global warming, it would have rated at least a photo-illustrated half-page spread.
If 10,000 anti-war activists came to D.C. to agitate for a U.S. withdrawal from the Eastern United States, The Times would have given them a half-page news story, along with a companion editorial and a blubbering commentary by Maureen “The Canyon Ranch Kid” Dowd.
But 100,000 right-to-life leaders and activists come to D.C. to mark the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and The Times doesn’t even publish a paragraph on it in the National Briefing box.
They came from across the United States, and included participants from Europe, Canada and Latin America. The event was dominated by high-school and college students. Speakers — including Congressmen and religious leaders — electrified the crowd. But The New York Times didn’t even give the March and rally the proverbial dog’s obituary.
On the other hand, here are a few of the non-news stories on which the paper lavished space today: “No Snickering: That Road Sign Means Something Else” (three-quarters of a page on A6, about signs with a double entendre in the U.K.), “Boise Region Grapples With Smog, a Growing Threat” (a half-page on A12) and “Heat and Drought Blamed for Tree Deaths in West” (A13).
Could The Times’ non-coverage of this year’s massive March for Life have anything to do with the paper’s dogmatically pro-abortion editorial policy? Perish the thought!
Once again, The New York Times makes the news fit its agenda.
http://boycottnyt.com/take-action
LOL ... it’s too late for a boycott. Look at their financial bottom line. No readers, no advertisers ... only the same ignorant gasbag journos and management.
Last year there 250,000 marchers. C-SPAN didn’t show it live. There was a Gay Pride event that same Saturday. Wall to Wall.
As if the NYTimes were the only thing ignoring the masses. Even if the American people read it in the Slimes, they wouldn’t care. The majority of the electorate voted for a pro-abort, remember? They are overjoyed that he is speeding up the death march - here and abroad.
Washington Times estimated crowd at 250,000+.
AP claimed “tens of thousands” and only “3 blocks” of marchers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169970/posts
There will be another March For Life next year and the year after that, and the year after that. Can the same be said for an edition of the Times? :)
Any photos????
Click the above link for photos.
USA Today’s “Faith and Reason” blog, Cathy Lynn Grossman casually mentions, “Still, anyone can see hundreds of thousands of marchers pulling into town.”
This is a media tactic used more frequently since Reagan.
We all know Reagan bypassed the media and went straight to the people. This could not be allowed by our media.
Hence, they now ignore reporting events that do not support the liberal agenda.
President George W Bush gave many excellent speeches about the war on terror, why certain action were taken, etc, but the media did not report on those.
If you remember, the media even refused to cover President Bush’s address to the nation on TV at certain times.
Lastly, remember, the media has even taken conservatives out of context to destroy them.
This move, by the NY Times is nothing new and will continue to get worse over time.
Stop whining.
Not only this, Barack actually had an encounter with some protesters and the audio played on Laura Ingraham’s program yesterday.
When you back out of the shot, you can see most of the crowd is photographers and reporters.
How easy is it to manufacture or suppress a story? Pretty damn easy.
The New York Times - and other liberal rags - need to bite the dust.
“If 50,000 feminists had gathered on the Mall in D.C.... accompanied with an aerial photo of the crowd.”
the Times would have assured us it “was more than a million feminists”
Which is why the news is falling apart. We don’t need them anymore.
Nice, but if 57% of Roman Catholics hadn’t voted for Barack Obama he wouldn’t have won.
our priest at 5:30 mass last Saturday talked about this same exact thing and predicted the non-coverage by the press last week...
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.