THE MEDIA

Not all — but most

Give some examples.

The 1973 decision and its progeny legalized abortion on demand even in the late months of pregnancy. For the next 22 years media reports consistently stated it was only legal for 3 months or (sometimes) until viability.

It took the U.S. Congress’ Partial Birth Abortion Ban debate on C-Span to graphically show the nation this barbaric third trimester infanticide/abortion before the media finally stopped hiding the fact that late abortions were done and were legal.

We are called "anti-abortion" (a negative label), while they are "pro-choice" (a positive label).

Large pro-life rallies, marches, picketing, etc., are ignored or grossly underestimated in size. A dozen "pro-choice" protesters, however, will get equal or often much more time on TV or space in print than even tens of thousands of pro-life people.

Anti-abortion "fanatics" are contrasted with pro-abortion people with "deep commitments."

It is okay to identify those who oppose abortion as Catholics, as Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, or right-wing extremists. But who has ever heard of a pro-abortion person being identified as a Jew, an atheist, or a homosexual or lesbian, if such they were.

How about surveys?

Comparison surveys tell us the most. This major one compared media and other leaders with the general public.

Another and more detailed report was based on "hour long interviews with 240 journalists and broadcasters at the most influential media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, etc." Among the findings were that 90% said a woman had the right to choose abortion.

Forty-six percent felt adultery was wrong, with only 15% feeling strongly about it, and 76% approved of living with someone of the opposite sex.

On religion, 50% denied any religious affiliation. Twenty-three percent were raised Jewish, but only 14% were practicing Judaism at the time. Only one in five identified themselves as Protestant, one in eight as Catholic. Overall, however, only 8% went to church or synagogue weekly with 86% attending seldom or never.

They were largely male, white, highly educated, with high incomes. They voted heavily for McGovern and Carter over Nixon and Ford. They were committed to the welfare state, to redistribution of income, and were strong environmentalists and desegregationists, Eight-five percent agreed that homosexuals have the right to teach in public schools, etc.

In a study two years later of "Television’s Elite," 104 network vice presidents, writers, producers, and executives returned similar results. "Ninety-seven percent of the ‘elite’ agreed that a woman has the right to decide on abortion."

J. Carmody, "The TV Column,"
Washington Post, Feb. 9, 1983

Yes. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times surveyed 3,000 of the general public and 3,165 more ordinary newspaper reports and editors nationwide. The same bias was evident in who favored:

What of journalism students?

In a study of 28 candidates for master’s degrees at Columbia University School of Journalism, the leftward bias was much more pronounced, showing overwhelming support of women’s rights. To sample one other question; in 1980, 4% voted for Reagan, 59% for Carter, and 29% for Anderson.

What of Opinion Formers in the performing arts?

A study of the 104 top Hollywood creators of TV shows, each of whom had been associated with two or more prime time series, reported that 97% were pro-abortion. Also, two-thirds said that TV should be a major force for social reform. As with the news media elite, they were well paid (two-thirds over $200,000 per year), white, urban, male, most lived in California and the Northeast, and only 7% went to church once a month.

A study of 149 writers, producers, and directors of the 50 top grossing movies (1965-83) showed 96% pro-abortion, with similar characteristic make-ups as those mentioned above.

S. Rothman & R. Lichter, "What Are Moviemakers Made Of?
Public Opinion 6, Dec.-Jan. 1984, pp. 14-18%

Try May 1996. A survey of 139 Washington-based journalists showed that 89% voted for Clinton in ’92, 7% for Bush and 2% for Perot, so no change here. Further, only 2% identified themselves as conservative, while the "moderate to liberal" category claimed 91%.

T. LaHaye, Capitol Report, Vol. 10, No. 5, May ’96

Let’s use just one more example. Anyone reading, watching or listening during Bill Clinton’s term from ’92-’96 would surely have become convinced of the fact that the Republican Convention in ’92 was a disaster and that strongly pro-life speakers like Pat Buchanan and Marilyn Quayle did great harm to Bush’s campaign.

During all of those four years, the media hammered away at this. Yet, polls taken before and after that convention tell a very different story.

No wonder T. LaHaye above said "The nation’s press and TV journalists act more like part of Clinton’s official re-election campaign than the objective reporters they try to claim they are." (May 1996).

Precisely! It seems that a large part of the listening, watching public is even rejecting evening news. During the years 1993-96, those who regularly watch plunged from 60% to 42%.

Why? Because these newscasts have all but lost any semblance of impartial reporting and no longer hide their extreme liberal bias.

What is the pro-life answer?

After listening to P. Jennings or D. Rather, turn to Marlin Maddox, Family News in Focus, and to the newer talk radio hosts. Remember also to listen to the daily commentaries on Christian Radio by Phyllis Schlaffly, Chuck Colson, Cal Thomas, your author on "Life Issues" and others.

Should we give up on the media? Is it hopeless?

Quite the contrary. Our relationship with the media is getting better.

We must get acquainted with media people. They will see us as single issue? True, but they must also see us as well-spoken and professional, not irresponsible fire-brands. They will then also see us as concerned for the mother as well as her preborn child; broad based, not a single political party or religion or sex; and as a voting block to respect.

We must educate them. Many media people have gross misconceptions of us and what we stand for. When they understand us and our issue better, we will get more balanced reporting.

Local or national?

You won’t have much luck with national media, but local is different.

Most local media people are sincere, dedicated, and try to do a job. You should praise their professional work, but constructively criticize their unprofessional reporting. Above all, however, respect them, and continue to work with them. When we do get to know each other, and do continue to communicate, we will get more balance and, sometimes, even favorable treatment.

Reporters and commentators are interested in news, any kind of news. When we make news, we rate time and space and will get it.

why can't we love them both?-Table of Contents