Saturday, January 21, 2006
March For Life: Why Isn't It News?
There are about 200 dioceses in the US. Every one that has a newspaper will make it front page news.
The Republican "pro-life" president didn't show up last year, nor will he this year. He can make speeches to crowds of a few hundred, but a few hundred thousand? No thanks; there's sports on the White House tv this weekend.
Come to think of it, has any "pro-life" president ever done anything more than phone in his regards?
If any liberals were still bothering to hold an annual protest over something, the media would (and does) ignore it, too. SOA is DOA, newspeaking, too. The sensible progs knew one Woodstock would be legendary. Two was a catastrophe and trust me: nobody's thinking seriously about W3. More likely, the Republicans will revive it if they think can make money on it.
The public pro-life message is tired, tired, tired. The media knows that. They can't sell toothpaste, cars, or computers on the back of the March for Life, so they'll look for another back to bum a ride on.
There is a positive side:
If the media did cover some aspect of the March, it would probably be some loony. Not having anti-abortion loonies on tv? That's priceless.
The pro-choice movement obviously takes it seriously enough to stage counter-protests, right? Once that opposition stops, the pro-life movement will really be marginalized.
And one suggestion:
I do think if the pro-life movement publicly cut loose the president, that might be news. I'm half-serious, you know.
