Abortion, Violence, and the Media.

The recent tragic shooting of abortionist Barnett Slepian has garnered the attention of the mass media as few news items can because of the profession of the man who died.

Much of the media immediately attributes an act of violence against abortionists or abortion clinics not to isolated, demented individuals but to the pro-life movement as a whole. (This can take place regardless of whom police may believe is guilty.)

For many in the media it is a given that the "anti-abortion movement" is somehow responsible for these reprehensible attacks. (As we will see below, recently, loose media accusations have grown even more out of control.)

An example of this leap to pro-life responsibility occurred almost three years ago on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On his walk home after work, an employee of the Mayflower Hotel here in Washington, D.C., found what appeared to be a grenade lodged in the base of a lamppost. Immediately, the police were called in and the media caught wind of the finding. What happened throughout the rest of the day and for much of that week stands as an illustration of how carried away the media can become.

Vice President Al Gore was scheduled to speak at a NARAL luncheon being held at the Mayflower Hotel that afternoon. And because the "grenade" was found a block away from an abortion clinic, it was assumed by the media that either the Vice President or the abortion clinic was the target -- an act of "antiabortion terrorism." Later in the day, the facts became known.

It turned out, that the "grenade" was a "dud," a device used as a piece of training equipment by the D.C. Police Department. Why it was found where it was discovered was not known, but it was determined that it had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

But that didn't stop media coverage of the "event." In fact, it almost seemed as if the media were determined to redeem themselves for such extensive and intense coverage of such a nonevent. The Washington Post the following day carried a front-page photo showing approximately 30 television cameras lining the street where the "grenade" was found. Interview requests came in throughout the week asking for NRLC's opinion on violence.

All of this is not to say that covering an event such as the tragic death of Barnett Slepian is not newsworthy. It is. But the conclusions and the preconceived notions many in the media reach are where the problem lies.

Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post critiqued the way his media colleagues handled Slepian's murder (November 2, 1998).

Among the examples he cited was CBS:

      On the CBS Evening News Dan Rather, while noting that most abortion
   opponents "are law-abiding citizens," said "Critics charge that rhetoric
   from the anti-abortion movement is helping to incite this kind of murderous
   violence." And CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger asked an antiabortion
   activist, "To what extent do you send a signal that it's okay to take a
   shot at an abortion doctor?" None, she said.

The reporter makes an assumption here -- the pro-lifer, just by the fact that she is pro-life, is somehow responsible through word or deed for these atrocious and tragic acts of violence. A reporter should never make a judgment about what he is reporting; that's not his job. His job is to report the news, not draw conclusions for the viewer.

Opinion pieces and political cartoons have echoed proabortion groups' insistence that pro-life "rhetoric" somehow "causes" violence. An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, had the following to say about rhetoric:

   Those who truly abhor the murder of Dr. Slepian must ponder well whether
   the pitch of rhetoric on both sides of the abortion issue somehow has
   emboldened evil to drown democratic dialogue in blood.

Interesting linkage for a newspaper: "rhetoric" is blamed for drowning out "democratic dialogue." But arguing that rhetoric triggers violence is equivalent to saying that those who spoke out for the civil rights of African-Americans are to blame for the deaths and riots that were part of that era.

But seriously misleading press accounts did not stop at what appeared on the wire, in newspapers, or on network television reports. The web sites of many media erred seriously by offering links to virtually no responsible pro-life organization.

For example, as of this writing, MSNBC's web site contains not a single link to a legitimate pro-life group. It does, however, contain an interactive database with a U.S. map listing every violent attack against abortionists or clinics. What impression does that leave?

In CNN's related links section, there were two to pro-abortion organizations and one link to a New York pro-life organization but none to any national pro-life group.

On ABC's web site wire reports are reprinted. There are no links to legitimate pro-life groups. However, the site does offer a World News Tonight transcript that reports on the life of one abortionist who owns a bulletproof vest. There are no pro-life comments, although the reporter does allude to the fact that the violence is committed by extremists.

Keep in mind that the wire services reported the majority of their stories without a true prolife response. Therefore by carrying only wire reports, the majority of these web sites are sore lacking in balance as well.

As it happened, in the middle of writing this article, I did an interview with National Public Radio on the topic (as the reporter put it) of "the decrease of abortion providers -- especially in rural areas." This story came about as a result of the death of Barnett Slepian.

I was asked to comment on assertions made by pro-abortion groups that we (i.e., the pro-life movement) have not condemned the violence as loudly or as fiercely as we should. We have, of course, as have all responsible, truly pro-life organizations.

But this interview did present me with the opportunity to lay this problem at the feet of where much of it belongs -- the mass media -- who have ignored our message of peace in favor of the sensational who espouse or tolerate violence. We can abhor violence and shout our message of nonviolence from the mountain top but unless that message is carried to the general public through such means as the media, our message does not travel far.

Let me again use the murder of Slepian as an example. The Saturday following the shooting, lacking details regarding his death, I sent out a general release stating NRLC's unequivocal opposition to violence. The Associated Press received our release and releases from other pro-lifers but did not quote any of us who oppose violence. Representatives from pro-abortion groups were quoted, properly, but with each updated story sent out on the wire, the omission of any true pro-life response was glaring.

The Kurtz's column cited above posed the question of whether there is "subtle -- or not-so-subtle -- bias" at work. He noted, for example, that when a left-wing environmental group took credit for burning a ski resort in Colorado, "there was little suggestion that environmental activists might have contributed to such violence." Rather than hammer all environmentalists, an ABC reporter (in Kurtz's words) "described the movement's dilemma sympathetically" -- that mainstream environmentalists "are afraid their cause will be tainted by the violence."

To give credit where credit is due, a pro-abortion columnist for Time magazine did a good job of trying to present a balanced and fair account. She laid the blame for the violence on extremists, very explicitly explaining that mainstream pro-life groups were not involved and were unequivocally opposed to violence.

As often as I repeat it, it is still true: many in the media take the "right" to an abortion as just that a "right" They don't understand our viewpoint and view us almost as a scientist would view a new discovery Under a microscope -- with curiosity and maybe wonderment but not necessarily with understanding. This lack of understanding translates into poorly researched stories, lack of balance, and reporting bias.

It is through developing and continuing relationships with reporters that we can prevent some of this misunderstanding. If a reporter knows you and your group and searches you out for comment on matters relating to pro-life issues then it is likely she would report your feelings on violence accurately. Knowing the reporters who cover your issues can go a long way toward alleviating the problem of bias and lack of balance.