NYT needs to encourage births

Babies grow up to read newspapers and pay the salaries of journalists and editors. I heard about the March for Life because I listen to Christian radio, but I think that was the only outlet that mentioned it around here. Maybe the media were still drunk from the Tuesday festivities.

“More than 300,000 people assembled in Washington, D.C. [January 22] for the 36th Annual March for Life. But as far as The New York Times is concerned, it never happened,” Feder observed. [BoycottNYT.com editor Don] Feder was the keynote speaker at the event’s Rose Dinner.

He continued, “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 by an aerial photo of the crowd.” From Accuracy in Media

If 10 Code Pink ladies stood under a street light at 3 a.m. outside a veterans' hospital protesting, the NYT would have sent a crew. Didn't they get front row seats at the inauguration?

Invitation to President Obama.

From Washington Post story (section A):

"Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said turnout at the annual Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Northeast on Wednesday night filled the basilica's 16,000-person capacity and spill into two overflow buildings. A morning youth concert and Mass yesterday at Verizon Center also filled up -- there were 20,000-plus seats -- and crowds were sent to nearby churches. . .

For eight years, marchers had been greeted by a message from President George W. Bush, who supported their cause and appointed two Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold federal restrictions on some abortion procedures.

In contrast, Obama issued a statement yesterday reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy. Roe v. Wade, the statement said, "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."

Of course, Washington Post is bi-lingual: "abortion foes," "abortion opponents," on the right side, and "a woman's right to end her pregnancy," and "reproductive freedom" on the left side.