Objective Media?

On January 22, the annual March for Life took place in Washington, D.C. Literally hundreds of thousands of people marched down Constitution Ave. to the steps of the Supreme Court, in protest of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion. Before the March, 30 thousand young people congregated in the Verizon Center for a rally. The vast majority of people in the March were, in fact, under 25 years old.

Sounds news-worthy, doesn't it? At least worthy of a small article? Go ahead and search the websites for the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune. You won't find an article. In fact, the newspaper in D.C., the Washington Post, was the only paper I found with a small article in it. Which is probably out of necessity, since the inhabitants of D.C. most likely would be none too pleased to have hundreds of thousands of people causing traffic and detours in their city, with no explanation from the news.

Well, you say, perhaps they mentioned it on the news on T.V. ? Nope. You would think that a group of people that large, possibly as large or larger than the Million Man March, marching through the capital of the country, would be noteworthy, if not headline news.

Oh, but that wouldn't be politically correct, some say. Since when did "politically correct" mean catering to one political point of view? Shouldn't media be objective? Whether the news station or newspaper leans liberal or conservative, they are supposed to report the truth, not leave out major events in support of their own agenda. Whether you consider yourself politically conservative or liberal, you should be appalled at the way information is being filtered. Shouldn't you know when any major things happen in the country you live in? You hear about all of the celebrities' problems and conflicts; yet the media fails to fill the populace in on major occurances in the capital.