More than 300,000 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.