Every day, I have a general routine of getting home around 3:00 and reading the newspaper. Generally, I begin with the "Nation & World" section, and then move to the "Opinion" section. Usually, it is the ill informed letter of some simpleton in the "Opinion" section that makes my blood boil, but today, my rage was inspired by an article in my supposedly unbiased local newspaper.

This article, entitled "Huge Rally Hits Capital" was on the "March For Women's Lives". It detailed the reasons for the march, mostly to protect "reproductive rights" (what an ambiguously mundane sounding term for the right to murder an unborn child) and was in the center of the page. According to it, celebrities like Cybill Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg were in attendance. Strident feminist Gloria Steinem added her amazingly helpful and non divisive words, likening President Bush to be as "socially conservative" as "Muslim extremists" or "the Vatican", because everyone knows that President Bush, protestant that he is, is in league with that bed of evil anti abortion ideals, the Vatican. Pope John Paul II, always ruining women's lives! Especially when he says things like this, "The growing presence of women in social, economic, and political life at the local, national, and international levels is thus a very positive development. Women have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation." See how obvious his dislike of women's rights is? The Vatican clearly has the same view of women's rights as Muslim extremists!

Anyway, the article continued, making sure to say a few unpleasant things about nasty anti abortion protesters for good measure. This wouldn't bother me if it were just an article about the ongoing debate about the legalization of abortion. While it was quite obviously tilted towards the pro choice point of view, the March for Women's Lives deserves to get press because it is a fairly large protest about an important issue. The problem is that it is the ONLY article.

I have been involved in the March for Life for quite some time now. It is an anti abortion march that has been going on for years. There is never any press, except to show a few pro abortion protesters and say, "Both sides of the argument were equally represented." Perhaps, one would argue, the anti abortion rights march is smaller than the pro abortion rally. That may be true. The numbers for the March for Women's Lives are, at the moment, wildly differing, ranging from 200,000 to 1,000,000. The March for Life hit its peak at 100,000. So, that argument would be valid, except for one tiny detail: the March for Life was the largest march on Washington until the March for Women's Rights, and if coverage was given purely for numbers, than the March for Life would have had SOME sort of coverage.

The best part is that I was beginning to be convinced that there was no bias in the media, that each separate journalist would have his/her own biases, so therefore stories would be only biased according to each individual journalist. But this blatant bias has changed that view.

I would probably be considered socially liberal (as I am anti death penalty, generally anti war, and pro gay marriage) if it weren't for my opposition to abortion. But does this mean I want to see only pro gay coverage? Or only anti-"War in Iraq" coverage? Of course not. And it disgusts me that there are people who are so caught up in their own beliefs that they would twist the very venue that Americans should be able to trust, the news media, to fit their own beliefs. There is something very wrong in a society that only allows the most "politically correct" views to be seen by the masses.