The Link to the story here

COMMENTARY ON MEDIA BIAS ON ABORTION


By L. Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center Aired Thursday, February 1, 2001 on NPR’s “Morning Edition”

As one of his first official acts on January 22, 1993, President Bill Clinton threw out Ronald Reagan’s executive order prohibiting U.S. funding for international agencies that subsidize or promote abortion. On exactly the same date eight years later president George W. Bush reinstated that policy.

Both presidents’ acts were consistent with their campaign platforms. Both fulfilled promises to supporters.

Yet despite these similarities, the news media have treated these presidential actions as different as day and night, casting one as lowly political pandering while describing the other as praiseworthy promise keeping.

This year, ABC’s Peter Jennings said, "President Bush begins by taking a tough line on abortion." But eight years ago, Jennings said only, "President Clinton keeps his word on abortion rights."

NBC did the same. This year, Tom Brokaw reported on “the new President’s very active day, which started on a controversial note.” Yet eight years ago, Brokaw simply reported, “President Clinton kept a campaign promise...”

CBS’s Dan Rather perpetuated this double standard, but then added insult to injury by ascribing a lowly political motive to President Bush, adding that his executive order served to "quickly please the right flank of his party...”

This bias against the pro-life movement is prevalent also in the New York Times and Washington Post, in Time and Newsweek and on radio – including, many believe, National Public Radio.

Why are conservatives always deemed to have a penchant for wading into controversy while liberals don’t? When it comes to abortion policy, why are Republicans pandering to their political base while Democrats are keeping promises to people?

This bias on abortion is not new. Take the 1992 Democratic National Convention. The party’s decision to silence pro-life Gov. Bob Casey generated one – one – network news story. But it was different at the Republican National Convention. When pro-choice Governor Pete Wilson was silenced, the networks reported that story 55 times.

Unbelievably, what I see as a pro-abortion bias got even worse during the ‘96 Conventions. The networks reported on the Republicans’ infighting over abortion 60 times, but reported on the Democrats’ internal struggles once.

Abortion is clearly the most controversial issue in politics today. Everyone has an opinion on the matter; and the country is deeply divided. Yet to listen to the networks is to believe there is only one credible side to the story. Call it a classic case of media bias.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 04, 2001

Answers

Uncle Bob:

I don't classify this as a case of media bias, but rather as a conscious and choreographed campaign. There are certain policies which are expressed, accepted, and followed by the media, for the purpose of indirectly establishing "proper" social direction. They know what they're doing.

In the case of abortion, I heartily support this media campaign. But when it comes to gun control, it infuriates me. I suppose it depends on your starting politics. If the church does your thinking for you, you oppose both. If (like the media) you favor trading liberty for security and convenience, you favor both. If you favor making your own damn decisions without church or bureaucrat interfering, you want to decide for yourself if you want a gun or an abortion, and believe in letting others make that same decision *themselves*, also without hindrance.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 04, 2001.

In the case of abortion, I heartily support this media campaign.

In the case of abortion, I heartily support the Mind your own business campaign. No place for this in government. It's a distraction that Republicans and Democrats alike want to have on the table. Why? IMHO because it's an emotional issue that distracts We, the people from the real issues. If this weren't true then this issue would have been settled a long, long time ago. Abortion is between a woman, her husband, and God. It's nobody’s business but theirs...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 04, 2001.

Correction...

I said abortion is between a woman, her husband, and God...

What I should have said is that it is between a woman, God, and whoever she wants (husband, boyfriend, etc). It's her decision.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 04, 2001.

Uncle Bob:

Are you saying this is a topic the media *should not cover*? Hey, if it sells advertising, they'll cover it. I don't want to even think about preventing it. If the topic bores you, ignore it.

I'll favor any position that opposes forcing me to do something against my will, *especially* to enforce the tenets of someone else's religion. I'll gladly follow the golden rule because it makes sense.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 04, 2001.

Are you saying this is a topic the media *should not cover*?

Absolutely not (I'm a bit surprised that you would perceive that from my posts...). We went off on a tangent; what I think is that the mainstream media should do is stop spinning the news, stop editorializing the news, and report only the facts. Give us the benefit of the doubt that we can assimilate the facts and draw sane and reasonable conclusions. Hell, why is FOX now the #1 cable news channel? Fair and Balanced Reporting (said with tongue-in- cheek)...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 04, 2001.

Uncle Bob:

You must be kidding, right? Back in Darwin's time, the Geology Society got tired of all the conflicting theories, and decided to report nothing but the facts - pure descriptions of the rocks they found. Darwin commented that these geologists might as well go to the nearest quarry and start cataloguing every shard and pebble. Darwin wrote "Of what possible use is any observation, unless it be for or against some view?"

We have an infinity of "facts" in every drop of water. You want the media to report them all? They'd never finish with the first droplet! They *must* pick and choose which facts are meaningful, and in turn which facts are meaningful depends entirely on the context provided by "some view", that is, some philosophical or theoretical context. And by necessary selection alone, a bias is a requirement. It simply cannot be avoided. Anyone who says the media should be unbiased is either dumb or dishonest.

And sure enough, the bias you are talking about is a function of emphasis -- which facts are selected, and how important they are, and which facts are omitted, and what this implies about the philosophical or theoretical context provided by the outlook the media people bring to their jobs. The *only* thing you can do different is change the emphasis and selection to reflect your philosophy instead.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 04, 2001.

Flint...

Let me simplify it for you. Report the news without the spin. Without agenda. Report the news. IMHO you are a little extreme on this. BTW, can you honestly say that the media's take on Clinton and abortion isn't slanted to the positive and the spin for Bush is negative?

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 04, 2001.

Uncle Bob:

I don't know how to make it clearer. You can NOT report the news without spin or agenda. The very *definition* of news implies spin and agenda. These cannot be avoided. They can be changed, of course. You can spin things differently, you can select another agenda. But there is NO SUCH THING as "just the facts" - there is an infinity of facts, and by selecting *any one* you have introduced spin. Sheesh.

You are correct that the media approve of abortion on demand. Those who agree with them meet with approval. They are "keeping promises" (which is true). Those who disagree are "introducing controversy" (which is ALSO true). Of course, it is JUST as true that those who agree are controversial, and those who disagree are keeping promises. The media have not told the whole truth. I've been trying to say that the whole truth cannot be told -- life is too short to hear everything that's true about a drop of water! You must pick and choose at the very least, and this implies an agenda.

So I can see the agenda the media are pushing. I agree (that is, my own agenda matches) in some cases, and I disagree in other cases. If I got to select the news, I'd put in a LOT more cases where armed citizens prevented crimes, and a LOT fewer cases of crimes committed by armed citizens. I might even try to make my stories proportional to the incidents actually happening -- except that these incidents are reported by the media, so quantitative analysis is useless.

Now, would my approach be spin? Of course. Even though everything I reported would be as factual as I could make it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 04, 2001.