MSM BIAS: Headlines From the Women's March vs. March for Life Prove It
It will surprise no one that the major "news" outlets that endlessly and breathlessly covered the "Women's March"—full of genitalia-bedecked whackos who had taken the rare day away from their cats to march around with obscenity-laden signs and scream the "F" word at passersby—had pretty much nothing to say about Friday's March for Life (unless it was inflammatory or outright lies). Let us peruse the recent headlines.
Here's a fun one at Cosmopolitan gushing over those oh so adorable pu**y hats and letting us know that Time magazine is putting the vagitators on the cover of their next issue. Squeal! All those fragile women who were so offended by Trump's use of the word pu**y a million years ago couldn't wait to run around town wearing said offensive things on their heads. Some of them even dressed up as giant vaginas to prove they could be even more vulgar than men in a locker room.
A look at the word salad in this article comes up with glowing descriptors like "cover star," "resistance," "iconic," "significance," "power," "huge turnout," "pro-women," "stand up for women," "optimistic," "silver lining," and "call to action." Sounds awesome.
I checked to see what Cosmo was writing about the March for Life. Whaddya' know! They took the opportunity to accuse Mike Pence of making it more difficult for poverty-stricken women to obtain "abortion care" and, for extra fun, threw in a scandalous claim that he started an AIDS epidemic in the state of Indiana. Of course they did. A similar perusal of the Pence article reveals descriptors like "opponents," "anti-abortion," "curtail," "prevent," "global gag rule," "incredibly difficult," "abortion care," "anti-choice," "restrictive," "gutted," and "HIV-outbreak." Sounds awful—and contagious.
Let's look at a comparison of The New York Times' coverage of the two marches. First a Google search for "NY Times Women's March" yielded these results.
A quick read of any of those articles would make you believe that the "Women's Marchers" had liberated American women from hell on earth! The glowing praise is enough to choke on. Those aren't the only articles, either, but my screengrab margins aren't big enough to capture all of the slobbering at once. You can Google it yourself for the full result. Here's the same search with the term "March for Life" inserted instead of the pu**y rioters.
The clearly glaring difference here is that the vaginators get the respect of the Times because the Times calls them what they prefer, which is the "Women's March." In all the above headlines, instead of giving the March for Life similar respect and naming the event properly, the Times opts to call them "Anti-Abortion Marchers" instead. This is deliberate and insidious. It's also extremely transparent. Even they have to know how old this is getting. The Times was so quick to provide photos from around the nation for the Angry Cat Lady March, but they pretended as if the March for Life was only in Washington, D.C. It wasn't. People march in every major city in this nation every year for the pro-life cause, but you won't see The New York Times sending its cameras to New York and Chicago and Los Angeles to cover it. Here's a congratulatory headline and accompanying photo from the Times for the vagina strollers. It's almost like being the uncomfortable person stuck next to the couple on the bus that won't stop making out. Get a room.