An article that appeared today in the British publication, The Guardian titled, “Progressive groups urge US media to ‘prioritize accuracy’ in culture war topics” led me to something I had missed: a preposterously inaccurate, turning truth on its head report, funded by Naral Pro-Choice America.
The Guardian story, written by Jessica Glenza, need not detain us long. It’s a convolution(because it makes no sense) argument derived from a coalition of “progressive” groups that the major print media are (unintentionally?) in cahoots with “right wing” groups (which, of course, in their political galaxy includes pro-lifers). Why? Because they risk “amplifying misinformation” by using unapproved “rhetoric.”
Solution? The “guiding principles” this group came up for journalists to subscribe to so that the group can “counter the volume of misleading statements” from the likes of, say, National Right to Life.
All this apparently grew out of a Naral report which found, according to Glenza, that “ just 11% of news reports about abortion “featured a real woman’s story.”
“With the supreme court gearing up to hear a direct challenge to Roe, we must ensure that the media has the tools necessary to accurately cover this case, and the issue of reproductive freedom more broadly,” said Kristin Ford, Naral Pro-Choice’s acting vice-president of communications and research, about the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade.
The “tools,” of course, will be provided by that wellspring of unbiased analysis, Naral Pro-Choice America.
LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.
So I clicked on the link and, presto chango, I was reading a press release about “Accurate and Unbiased? A deep dive into how the media covers abortion in the US.”
Just reading the title makes you laugh. The implication is clear: pro-abortionists are getting the short end of the stick from the “mainstream media” which is peopled with one pro-lifer for every 99 pro-abortionists. (By the way, how deep a dive can it be when the report is just 20 pages long?)
The press release’s opening two paragraphs tell all:
A new media analysis released by NARAL Pro-Choice America found that coverage of abortion in top-tier print outlets excludes the voices of medical experts and pregnant people, overwhelmingly tracks abortion litigation and legislation, and parrots disinformation- based rhetoric, often using medically inaccurate or inflammatory language such as “heartbeat” bill without context or explanation.
The analysis, which was conducted by Global Strategy Group, assessed who writes about abortion, what drives abortion coverage, how disinformation-based, anti-choice rhetoric is often adopted as seemingly neutral or descriptive terminology, and what types of voices are included in coverage.
Talk about ingrates. Most media coverage reads as if it came hot off the presses of Naral and Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party.
They gripe that too much coverage is devoted to politics and legislation and litigation, short-shrifting the real experts: “pregnant people” (aka pregnant women) and their “doctors.” Abortion is, in their unbiased mind, first and foremost a “health issue.”
Not only that, Naral complains (they complain a lot in this report), not enough attention is paid to “majority support for Roe v. Wade” and waaaay too much attention is given to “charged rhetoric from anti-choice advocates…. oftentimes with minimal context.” By that they mean, reporters should challenge every syllable that comes from a pro-life source instead of being content with just disputing every word.
There is an old phrase but a good one, about not biting the hand that feeds you. It is simply difficult to imagine how “top-tier print outlets” could be any more slavishly pro-abortion.
But Naral is smart enough to know there is nothing they could possibly say that would deter “top-tier print outlets” from “the swift completion of their appointed rounds”—shilling for the Abortion Industry.