Prezi summary: https://prezi.com/kegdn6xjvxen/the-march-for-life/
An annual rally, the March for Life protests abortion. Its mission statement is “to provide all Americans with a place to testify to the beauty of life and the dignity of each human person.” The march is held in Washington, D.C. around the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion.
The March for Life Education and Defense Fund organizes the march. Each year the president of the fund speaks. The 44th march was held on January 27, 2017 and had the highest ranking official ever, Vice President Pence, give a speech.
The New York Times
Pence Tells Anti-Abortion Marchers That ‘Life is Winning’
By Jeremy W. Peters, Yamiche Alcindor and Noah Weiland January 27, 2017
When reading carefully, it is not difficult to see that the New York Times article takes a more liberal stance. The term “pro-life” appeared a total of two times, both in quotations. The author referred to the march or those who attended as “abortion opponents” and events or actions as “overturning the right to abortions” or to “outlaw abortion.” The negative connotation associated with “opponents” can be processed subconsciously and have an effect on the mentality of the reader. The article did not fail to point out flaws. In two of the marchers’ personal accounts quotes were included about how they were worried about Trump and only voted for him because of his position on abortion. Lastly, in the words of the author themselves, their view in the report can be summarized as, “Usually their defiance is not much more than symbolism.”
The Washington Post
March for Life: Pence speaks as thousands assemble at Washington Monument
By Julie Zauzmer and Sarah Pulliam Bailey January 27
Typically left leaning, the Washington Post’s article on the March for Life was did not fail to lean the same way. However, the report did provide some information in a conservative manner. Numerous examples were given recounting the stories of marchers. Quotes were included that used words such as God, procreation, adoption, pilgrimage, as well as women’s rights and human rights. The quotes from the marchers were the main way to portray the conservative point of view because it was the only time the article had a positive tone, the rhetoric the authors used was otherwise negative. Facts were given in a neutral manner whenever possible. Furthermore, the report’s concluding sentence mentions research about pro-abortion, “Nationwide, 59 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, the highest percentage since 1996, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center.”
Pence, Conway cheer on March for Life
By Eugene Scott and Sara Murray January 29
Presenting a fairly neutral article, CNN primarily includes facts. The author focuses on things such as the history of the march, those who attended the march in 2017, and President Trump’s position. All are done in such a way that the authors’ opinions are not forced onto the reader. The report does not sway too far to either side by following a statement that may read conservative with something more liberal. For example, when talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, the author includes a quote immediately after, “we will devote those resources to health care services for women across America,” by Vice President Pence. Once again, the article ends with information on two Pew Research Center polls: the first says, “More than 60% of Republicans said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases;” and the second, “Nearly seven-in-ten Americans say Roe v. Wade should not be completely overturned.”
March for Life attendees express hope for Trump presidency
By John Bat January 27
The CBS News provides a more neutral article with a realistic presentation for the Pro-life movement. Beginning with the goals, attendees of the March, and new administration, the author maintains a sense of hope for conservatives. However, that optimism is paired with caution as the article continues to discuss how change would come about. The author includes personal accounts of those who were worrisome about Trump because of his flip-flop and lack of focus on abortion in the past. In conclusion, Trump may not be perfect but if he is able to appoint two Supreme Court Justices Roe v. Wade can be overturned and the issue of abortion would be given back to the states. There seems to be an optimistic feeling overall matched with statements that also explain the necessary actions and outcomes.
The Wall Street Journal
Vice President Mike Pence Addresses ‘March for Life’ Antiabortion Rally
Kellyanne Conway also speaks to rally in Washington
By Michelle Hackman January 27
Although it may appear liberal in certain places, the Wall Street Journal article is mainly conservative. After opening with the history of the March and Vice President Pence’s speech the author then addresses its one liberal perspective. A spokesman for an abortion-rights group calls the new administration “the greatest threat to reproductive rights.” However, in the conservative counter-argument nearing the end of the article, the author includes a quote from Jeanne Mancini, the president of the March for Life. She says that the Women’s March a week earlier was all about inclusion yet excluded Pro-life marchers from joining. The article also discusses the hopes for those who are anti-abortion. Pro-choice statements were made but were reciprocated with stronger pro-life statements.
‘Life is winning’: Pence fired up March for Life crowd
By Jennifer Hickey January 27
The title alone demonstrates the conservative viewpoint the article has towards the March for Life. Continuing to the first sentence, the author includes quotes from Vice President Pence saying “their movement is succeeding…this movement be known for love…not confrontation.” A liberal would have the opposite view of the march. When talking about the high ranks of people who attended, there is a quote from a female protestor saying that women are lied to about abortion. The author also writes about the Inauguration and Women’s March that occurred earlier and makes a comment that can be overlooked when not read carefully, “Both drew enormous crowds and were, for the most part, orderly.” This low jab about violence at previous events is followed by information on the large number of supporters who attended the first March for Life as well as the 2013 and 2016 events.
The Washington Times
ABC deletes Trump’s March for Life reference in its online transcript
By Kelly Riddell January 27
This brief account provides a conservative standpoint on the political spectrum. The author’s main purpose for writing the article, as the title states, is to point out that ABC News did not include President Donald Trump’s statement about the March for Life in the online transcript of its video recording. Mr. Trump said that there would be a large crowd at the March for life, “as large or larger” than the Women’s March a week prior; however, it would receive “little or no air-time on the nightly news shows.” The author includes a report by the Media Research Center which found that “the major television networks gave the Women’s March 129 times more coverage than last year’s March for Life.” It is clearly suggested that it may not have been an accident that the reference was excluded, rather an intentional “newsroom bias against the March for Life.” With such clear conservative views as to point out the coverage and bias in the news, the author disapproves of liberal coverage, or lack thereof, in media.
The March for Life is a good example to look at when examining media coverage of protest. In the New York Times article, the author portrays the march as a bad thing by only using negative terms to refer to it. Furthermore, the accounts of protestors used were purposely used because they spoke of their concern for President Trump. Another liberal source, the Washington Post article is similar. However, it used quotations to express a conservative view that was not otherwise included. At the end, a research poll was included about how abortion should not be illegal, a liberal view. The CNN article is more neutral because every time it presented something on one side of the political spectrum, it followed with the opposite side. For example, it included the same poll as the one mentioned at the end of Washington Post article. Like CNN, CBS News presents a neutral article by talking about the march optimistically and then about the situation as a whole realistically. The Wall Street Journal’s conservative article includes a liberal perspective then counter argues it, similar to the New York Times article. Fox News is much more one-sided, only presenting a conservative point of view and talking positively about the march. Overall, the reports discussed the history of the march, Vice President Pence’s attendance, and had quotes from marchers. Upon further reflection however, there is not much detail included, there could be more information included given that 2017 marked the 44th annual march. Lastly, the Washington Times points out the extreme bias in coverage compared to the Women’s March one week prior. Therefore, it could be interpreted that such a controversial issue as abortion leads media to cover the March for Life as little as possible because if they scratch past the surface they may offend their viewers.