On my way home from work this evening, I heard a report on the radio from CBS (I believe) about the March for Life in Washington D.C. The interesting thing is that they said it was happening, made no mention of the numbers involved, then went right to the interview. . . with the regional director of Planned Parenthood. They did no interview with anybody present at, or representing those at the march.
I got home later and looked up the reporting on their site, more of the same.
Of course when they do reporting about marches for causes they agree with, they go right to the opposing side for comment and the last word, right?
Of course they do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sirocco,
I googled "cbs protest march" and took the first applicable article that was not from a local affiliate. Didn't cherry pick at all.
Are you really going to tell me that CBS, NBC, CNN, AP, and Rueters cover all protests equally? Did the coverage of anti-war protests receive the same "from all sides" approach that the March for Life is given? What is wrong with reporting on the March, without editorializing and searching the Roledex for Planned Parenthood? If they want input, let them have their own march and report on that separately.
For the record, ABC appears to have done that:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2813264
I may not always agree with Mark Halperin, but he is making a difference in cleaning up that network.
Also, if someone exhibits bias, but doesn't even pretend to be "journalistic", and another exhibits the same or more bias, but claims impeccable journalistic neutrality, who is more honest?
You know what Rush Limbaugh is when you turn on the show, can the same be said of Bill Moyers for instance, or the news desk editor of the local paper?
Post a Comment