NRL News

Does the Washington Post have a secret soft spot for pro-lifers? After 49 year of awful coverage, the answer is, of course, no!

by | May 11, 2022

By Dave Andrusko

Media Matters describes itself as a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Once upon a time it had some prominence as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. Not so much anymore.

To give you some idea how far left they are, yesterday they bashed the Washington Post for (get this) “continu[ing] to amplify harmful anti-abortion messaging at a critical point for the future of reproductive rights.” With a straight face, I assume.

For decades, The Washington Post has published story after story, opinion piece after opinion piece, and editorial after editorial that reads as if they came straight out of the playbooks of PPFA, Naral Pro-Choice America, and EMILY’s List. 

Media Matters is ticked off that the Post occasionally prints something that, for lack of a better word, humanizes you and me.

Here’s their lead paragraph:

In its coverage of a bombshell report that the Supreme Court is on the cusp of overturning Roe v. Wade, The Washington Post boosted anti-abortion activists, equated anti-choice and pro-abortion positions, and adopted toxic framing on abortion care directly from its adversaries. 

Boosted,” equated,” “toxic framing.” Who knew that behind its pro-abortion façade, The Washington Post has a soft spot for pro-lifers? (Hint: I didn’t know and I read the Post pretty thoroughly.)

The Post, we’re told, “copiously quoted notorious anti-choice group figures,” which is a cardinal sin, given that the pro-life movement is filled with “serial misinformers.”

Needless to say, for Media Matters, there are not (at least) two sides to the abortion debate. “In the wake of the Politico report [about the leaked opinion that Roe and Casey could be overturned], the Post’s coverage included a considerable amount of anti-abortion rhetoric and treated abortion access as a ‘both sides’ political issue rather than essential health care.”

Get it? Abortion is “essential health care,” except for the child who is scrapped out, vacuumed out, poisoned, and/or has her head severed from her torso. But to acknowledge that is to fall into the camp of the serial misinformers.”

One other quote from this diatribe. “Another May 4 article juxtaposed pro-abortion and anti-abortion views in a piece titled ‘For women, despair and joy as overturning of Roe appears imminent.’” 

For Media Matters, there’s good guys and bad guys. You can’t “juxtapose” the two sides because that implies that you actually pay attention to what the bad guys–us–say.

One other point.

Are we to assume that since abortion is “essential health care,” the people who are happy about its possible demise should be ignored? Does a debate that has gone for nearly 50 years not merit (ever so infrequently) a portrait of pro-lifers which does treat us like cartoonish figures? 

That is not “caving to the anti-abortion misinformation campaign during this crucial moment.” It is to pay the pro-life a much deserved compliment.

Categories: Media Bias