- The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 20, 2016

The mainstream media has long been finicky about covering the annual March for Life, which draws several hundred thousand people to the National Mall to reaffirm their pro-life beliefs, parse politics and recall the late Nellie Gray, the “tireless advocate for the unborn” who founded the event in 1974. The press is once again likely to ignore this year’s march, scheduled to begin at high noon Friday in the nation’s capitol, blizzard or no blizzard. The event has some protectors this time around, however. The Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues — a coalition of 17 pro-life groups and two Republican lawmakers — is demanding news organizations cover the march, and cover it fairly. They cite a glaring example of failure: Major networks only gave the rally 15 seconds of coverage in 2015, which the organization says is tantamount to censorship.

“The media have covered all manner of protests in our nation’s capital no matter how large or small, but they refuse to cover hundreds of thousands of peaceful marchers advocating for the unborn. We will raise our voices on behalf of these precious children and let the media know that they must cover the march,” says Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, which has monitored the scanty coverage for years.

“The liberal media’s consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful,” observes Rep. Alex Moody of West Virginia.

“The national media routinely dismiss one of the largest public demonstrations that takes place in America,” agrees Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. “Unsurprisingly, polls consistently show that Americans distrust the national media to provide them with fair and objective coverage of the news. Americans will continue to reject the bias of the liberal national media until the media provides them with all the facts and stops telling them what to think.”


As an addendum to the aforementioned press habits, a separate Media Research Center analysis found that ABC, CBS and NBC chose not to cover a worrisome Fox News report that Hillary Clinton’s private email system while she was secretary of state harbored information revealing some of the nation’s “most secretive and highly classified organization operations.” The Democratic presidential hopeful had claimed otherwise; serious questions have ensued.

SEE ALSO: Obama praises his auto bailout in Detroit, blasts GOP

“The networks saw no interest in even mentioning it to their viewers,” says analyst Curtis Houck.


Meanwhile, the press has lots to think about now that Sarah Palin has emerged on the campaign trail, declared her allegiance to Republican front-runner Donald Trump and had her say. How’d she do? Journalists were apparently much attuned to her style. A sampling of reviews in the aftermaths of her Trump endorsement on Tuesday.

“Fiery aphorisms and folksy slang” (USA Today), “filled with Palinisms like ‘pussy-footin’, ‘hallelujah’ and ‘you betcha’ ” (CNN); “meandering, fiery, sarcastic, patriotic and blustery” (New York Times, which also pointed out Mrs. Palin invented the new word “squirmish”); “raucous” (ABC News), “embarrassingly incoherent and rambling” (The Daily Caller); “rambling, remarkable and at times hard to understand” (The Washington Post); “a one-of-a-kind speech” (Business Insider).


“I consider myself the ‘Prince of Light and Hope.’”

— Republican hopeful Gov. John Kasich to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt; Mr. Kasich considers himself a contrast to a certain unnamed rival he deems “The Prince of Darkness,” whose intention is to rile up the public.


It’s a family affair. The Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising apparatus seems to be perpetually revved up and humming. This week is no exception: There are 10 fundraisers in six states in five days featuring three Clintons. Daughter Chelsea Clinton oversees three events in New York. Mrs. Clinton herself appears at four gatherings in North Carolina and Texas. Former President Bill Clinton is showcased in four events in Colorado, California and Nevada. Next week there are 18 fundraising events, with former White House adviser John Podesta, rock icon Jon Bon Jovi and tennis veteran Billie Jean King joining the effort.

There’s a little bump in the road though. Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer — who spent $70 million supporting his candidates of choice during the 2014 midterm election alone — has revealed he is not ready to endorse Mrs. Clinton

“I don’t think she’s fully fleshed out everything she has to say about energy and climate,” Mr. Steyer told Reuters, admitting he has common interests with Sen. Bernard Sanders.

“If you look at the Republicans, there are a whole bunch of serious Republican candidates who are diametrically opposed to everything President Obama has spoken about in terms of progressive energy and climate policies. So when you think about what is at stake: almost everything,” Mr. Steyer said.


20 percent of registered Republicans voters say Donald Trump would be a “great” president; 36 percent say he’d be “good,” 18 percent “average,” 11 percent “poor” and 11 percent “terrible.”

16 percent of Republicans say Sen. Ted Cruz would be a great president; 37 percent say good, 25 percent average, 9 percent poor and 4 percent terrible.

12 percent of Republicans say Ben Carson would be a great president; 31 percent say good, 30 percent average, 13 percent poor and 5 percent terrible.

9 percent of Republicans say Sen. Marco Rubio would be a great president; 35 percent say good, 30 percent average, 12 percent poor and 4 percent terrible.

3 percent of Republicans say Jeb Bush would be a great president; 22 percent say good, 35 percent average, 21 percent poor and 15 percent terrible.

3 percent of Republicans say Gov. Chris Christie would be a great president; 28 percent say good, 34 percent average, 18 percent poor and 7 percent terrible.

Source: A Pew Research Center poll of 702 registered Republican voters conducted Jan. 7-14.

Cheers, jeers and fears to [email protected]

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide