Over 300 Thousand Protesters [Archive]

View Full Version : Over 300 Thousand Protesters

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:00

Strike For The South

01-23-2009, 06:02

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/obama.abortion/index.html

Front page of the biggest news site in America.

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:04

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/obama.abortion/index.html

Front page of the biggest news site in America.

YESSSSSS. That's a first. I wouldn't call it frontpage though - it is in the politics section and I can't find it unless I click your link.

Lemur

01-23-2009, 06:06

Strike For The South

01-23-2009, 06:10

YESSSSSS. That's a first. I wouldn't call it frontpage though - it is in the politics section and I can't find it unless I click your link.
inauguration just 2 days ago.

I went to cnn and it was there

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:10

Putting "roe protest" into Google News yields 235 current articles (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=roe+protest&btnG=Search+News). Not bad for an event that has been going on for over a decade.

Using Google News's code for the event yields 1,111 articles. I don't think this is a media blackout.

Did you watch the news today? See anything? Most americans get their news from the television. You and I don't - but most do. I would think that this would be interesting.

The fact that you can type "roe protest" and get a page of results devoid of NBC, CNN or Fox links is evidence that it is not getting default play. Sure people can search for it and it matters to a multitude, but it says nothing of MSM coverage. The idea that you will only hear about it if you search is telling. Drudge didn't even have a thing about it. He didn't last year either.

Is the news about information or about what will shock people? What is going on in your world and national capital regarding over 300 thousand people is probably of more importance than "Benjamin Button leads Oscar field" - they give out Oscars every year as well, but they still manage to fit that onto the front page of BBC America (while the March is nowhere to be found).

KukriKhan

01-23-2009, 06:19

So not a blackout.

Gandy said the fight will also continue on the pro-abortion rights side.

"There's no question we have a pro-choice president now, but he can't do it alone," she said. "He can't pass legislation. He can't stop what's going on at the state and local level and so the battle rages on ... at the congressional level, at the state and local level and certainly at the Supreme Court."

She said the number of unwanted pregnancies is rising, as congressional action has increased the cost of contraception for college students and low-income women, "something we hope this administration will reverse."

Two pieces of federal legislation are pending, she said. The first will expand accessibility and availability of birth control, and the second, the Freedom of Choice Act, is a codification of Roe v. Wade. NOW will continue pursuing both at the congressional level, she said, but noted that even though Congress has a Democratic majority, it does not have a pro-abortion rights majority.
"So that will continue to be an uphill battle," she said

my bolding.

Congress increased birth control costs to co-eds? Who knew? The rat ********!

Free Condoms! Free teh Condoms! Set Condumbs freee!

Lemur

01-23-2009, 06:20

Did you watch the news today?
That would be no. I didn't watch any TV today, a sin for which I will have to atone someday.

For what it's worth, fewer and fewer Americans get their news (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2824760420080229) from the teevee ...

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:27

That would be no. I didn't watch any TV today, a sin for which I will have to atone someday.

For what it's worth, fewer and fewer Americans get their news (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2824760420080229) from the teevee ...

Yes- and that is a good thing. I didn't watch any TV either.

Irrespective of what is going on with television viewership generally, the reality remains. Most Americans get their news from the MSM (particularly the networks on television). Otherwise it wouldn't be called the MSM.

How would you feel if you had to dig for ant-war protests where there were 300k or more attending? "Oh, it is covered because they talk about it one some blog or fuzzy Christian TV network", you'd say? Give me a break.

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:37

Strike For The South

01-23-2009, 06:40

CNN IS SIXTH DOWN THATS WHERE I FOUND IT.

FOX IS FITH ON THE RIGHT

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 06:45

CNN IS SIXTH DOWN THATS WHERE I FOUND IT.

FOX IS FITH ON THE RIGHT

Thanks. I stand corrected.

I get home at midnight and ask anyone if they saw anything about it on the news - they say "no", so I become indignant.

There seems to be vastly more people involved every year.

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 06:51

Free Condoms!

No free condoms over there? Seriously? Do you want an HIV-epidemic, or what?

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2009, 06:56

Amazingly, we have avoided one among college students without them. And that quote probably contains a bunch of BS about anything congress has done. Haven't the dems been in control for 2 years?

CR

Strike For The South

01-23-2009, 07:08

Thanks. I stand corrected.

I get home at midnight and ask anyone if they saw anything about it on the news - they say "no", so I become indignant.

There seems to be vastly more people involved every year.

Np.

CountArach

01-23-2009, 07:25

Find me a single story on each of these sites of this years march for life. Don't search, because if you already know of an occurance, what is the news for? It is to inform you of what you don't yet know, right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
5th down in "US and World Section".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
Not American, hence there is no need for it to cover it. That would be like asking when you last heard about XXX UK Politician involved in YYY scandal - it just isn't going to happen.

Also yearly events rarely receive the same amount of coverage that one-off events do.

Ronin

01-23-2009, 12:28

Is the news about information or about what will shock people? What is going on in your world and national capital regarding over 300 thousand people is probably of more importance than "Benjamin Button leads Oscar field" - they give out Oscars every year as well, but they still manage to fit that onto the front page of BBC America (while the March is nowhere to be found).

You just answered your own question......TV news is about what gets ratings.

Vladimir

01-23-2009, 14:03

No free condoms over there? Seriously? Do you want an HIV-epidemic, or what?

Well in modern western countries HIV cases are concentrated in the homosexual community which is less likely to use them. However this isn't the case in *ahem* less developed countries.

:cheerleader: :norway: :cheerleader:

You just answered your own question......TV news is about what gets ratings.

:yes:

KukriKhan

01-23-2009, 15:06

No free condoms over there? Seriously? Do you want an HIV-epidemic, or what?

About 50 cents - $1 apiece. 'Course you can get freebies from many sources - and you can certainly count on getting your money's worth with those.

Tribesman

01-23-2009, 15:08

Well in modern western countries HIV cases are concentrated in the homosexual community which is less likely to use them.
Male HIV cases are concentrated in the homosexual community , female cases are concentrated in the hetrosexual community .
As you use the Norwegian flag in your spoiler can you suggest any link in Norway having free condoms and getting a 0.1% infection rate and America without the free condoms getting a O.6 % infection rate ?
Or maybe its just that more Americans are poofs .

Lemur

01-23-2009, 15:09

How would you feel if you had to dig for ant-war protests where there were 300k or more attending? "Oh, it is covered because they talk about it one some blog or fuzzy Christian TV network", you'd say? Give me a break.
Actually, I remember in '03 when we were gearing up to invade Iraq, there were massive protests in major cities in the U.S., but I was only aware of them because I personally saw one out the window of the office where I was working.

Nobody cared. We all knew the Bush administration was going in; there was no realistic chance for the protesters to accomplish anything. So logically, the teevee news barely mentioned it. (At least ABC news, which I watched back then, didn't bother. They paid more attention a few weeks later when massive protests shut down London.)

There were other reasons for the low coverage -- a lot of the protesters seemed to be trying to relive the sixties, they were mish-mashed with a thousand different causes, and as I said, they had zero chance of a real policy impact. And who wants to see smelly hippies doing a drum circle in the middle of traffic?

What are the chances that the particular anti-abortion rally you attended will change policy? I'm guessing zero.

The same rally has been held on this day for over a decade. Teevee people don't like boring, predictable airing of grievances. They like kidnappings, psychic dogs and trucks on fire. As another poster said, they're in the business of attracting eyeballs, nothing else.

I'm sorry you feel the protest is receiving too little coverage, but I don't appreciate your tone of martyred grievance.

Vladimir

01-23-2009, 15:57

Male HIV cases are concentrated in the homosexual community , female cases are concentrated in the hetrosexual community .
As you use the Norwegian flag in your spoiler can you suggest any link in Norway having free condoms and getting a 0.1% infection rate and America without the free condoms getting a O.6 % infection rate ?
Or maybe its just that more Americans are poofs .

Just having fun with the poster by adding a little gem of information. ~;) Unlike most nation-bashers I have a sense of humor, in less it deals with the Rooskies.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-23-2009, 17:07

What would you say if I told you that over 300 thousand people protested in Washington today over a single issue. Would you be suprised? Wouldn't you think that you would hear something about it on any mainstream news network?

Now what would you say if I told you that they do it every single year on the same day and for ten years the numbers have exceeded 200k?

Wouldn't you think it would be worth a little note? How about a little coverage?

I would say that my council sent up 1 busload, and I think the other smaller councils nearby combined for a 2nd busload....and the numbers grow every year.

EDIT

Regrettably, I must concur with Lemur as to the likely media response both now and in the immediate future. However important the issue is, it lacks enough of a "man bites dog" quality for them to give it significant air-time.

drone

01-23-2009, 17:10

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 19:10

WaPo had a front page web article on it yesterday, along with a follow up and photo gallery today. Both National and Metro sections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012200755.html

It's not going to get much press because a) 300K versus the 2 million a couple days before, and b) if nothing got done when W and the GOP ruled the roost, nothing is going to happen now when the Dems rule Congress and Obama is pro-choice.

300k for a single issue during January is impressive. 2 million was a massive demonstration of support for our first black President - if anything the message should have been included

Yes people are happy that we have broken down the ceiling for minorities in this country. No that does not mean that Obama's America is the one that everyone wants. I want quite a bit of it, but if he thinks this election has been a repudiation of the Life movement, we showed up to dissapoint his narrative.

Spino

01-23-2009, 19:28

Speaking from first hand experience what you see on the news is a combination of giving the TV audience what they want to see with the host's, producers' and writers' own interest & personal bias. Case in point any coverage or story having to do with the economy or the Federal Reserve. When the credit crap hit the fan last year my show's producers mulled doing in-depth segments on the Federal Reserve and the processes involved in the banking system but they nixed the idea altogether. The reason? Too complicated, not compelling enough and the final nail in the coffin for any segment... 'too boring'. Basically anything that requires more than a modicum of serious research or the undivided attention of the viewer is discarded in favor of a light, superficial approach. Serious coverage is often left to the 'once in a blue moon special report' or to shows that sport hosts or producers that actually give a damn. Then when you consider that most people who work in the news business are biased to the left to varying degrees then you can see why some things get more coverage than others. Just the other day our show did a segment on the interview Rush Limbaugh did with Sean Hannity where he talked about not wishing Obama all the best given his plans and ideological leanings. Talk about a WTF moment for me! That qualifies as prime time news?!? I am continually astounded at the coverage this man gets by the media. They must truly despise every fiber of his being for them get so worked up every time he opens his mouth. He may be a popular and controversial radio talk show host but he isn't a top ranking official in the Republican party, he's never held political office and he's never served on an elected official's staff! And yet I consider the show I work on to be one of the more balanced ones on cable news so go figure.

One thing that has shocked me since coming to CNN is the glaring lack of knowledge many of our producers, associate producers and production assistants have about well, lots of things. Most of them simply don't know what the hell is going on other than what they read in the newspapers and in their periodicals of choice. Our writers are far more knowledgeable though but a large percentage of them are more open about their personal bias. What's worse is most of our staff have a piss poor grasp of history, let alone political history (yes, even some of the writers).

Teevee people don't like boring, predictable airing of grievances. They like kidnappings, psychic dogs and trucks on fire. As another poster said, they're in the business of attracting eyeballs, nothing else.

PSYCHIC DOGS?!? WHERE?!? WHAT CHANNEL??? ZOMG SOMEONE TIVO IT FOR ME!!! :dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

HoreTore

01-23-2009, 20:12

but if he thinks this election has been a repudiation of the Life movement, we showed up to dissapoint his narrative.

....and just how many cared about the 300k who showed up? HAH!:smash:

Pro-choice FTW!

drone

01-23-2009, 20:13

300k for a single issue during January is impressive. 2 million was a massive demonstration of support for our first black President - if anything the message should have been included

Yes people are happy that we have broken down the ceiling for minorities in this country. No that does not mean that Obama's America is the one that everyone wants. I want quite a bit of it, but if he thinks this election has been a repudiation of the Life movement, we showed up to dissapoint his narrative.

The election was not a repudiation of the Life movement. The inaction by the party using the Life movement for votes was it's repudiation.

You asked why nobody covered the march. Several outlets did, but they did not put it higher than the news on Obama's executive orders and other stuff. I'm just surprised why you think it should have been different. This is the 35th year, nothing has changed, and nothing is going to change in the near future. There is a new rockstar in the White House, and in most people's minds, we are facing far more serious problems than the legality of abortion. So of course it's not going to get top billing.

Personally, I think marches on DC are so cliched these days that they all fail to have any real impact. All they do is anger the locals.

ICantSpellDawg

01-23-2009, 23:11

The election was not a repudiation of the Life movement. The inaction by the party using the Life movement for votes was it's repudiation.

You asked why nobody covered the march. Several outlets did, but they did not put it higher than the news on Obama's executive orders and other stuff. I'm just surprised why you think it should have been different. This is the 35th year, nothing has changed, and nothing is going to change in the near future. There is a new rockstar in the White House, and in most people's minds, we are facing far more serious problems than the legality of abortion. So of course it's not going to get top billing.

Personally, I think marches on DC are so cliched these days that they all fail to have any real impact. All they do is anger the locals.

I think problem number one is people killing one another worldwide for their own gain. This is the most basic manifestation of that bankruptcy.

The economy is important, but ask yourself why it is important that we be able to afford a BMW instead of a Nissan. As long as people work and have decent ideas we will live, love and progress.

I believe that if we abandon the weak or innocent among us that everything else is irrelevant. I want the United States to do well because it has nobler ideas than many other nations who place little value on life and freedom. If our nation stops placing adequate value on life and freedom then I do not care if we do well financially or not.

The downturn is bad because we are spoiled. Just work hard, learn, volunteer when unemployed and it will get better eventually. We are just being bratty because shortcuts to absurd wealth are dissapearing.

Show me people starvingon the streets of the US and then I'll place the economy on a higher plain than abortion. Human life is paramount.

drone

01-23-2009, 23:35

I understand that this is issue #1 with you. But it is not with the people who publish the news. And since Obama just lifted the gag rule (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302814.html?hpid=topnews), the march apparently did not have it's desired effect. From the OP, the intent of this thread is the lack of coverage for the march, not abortion in general. Spino and Lemur are on target. The march itself is honorable, but in the end it will not get huge press because it is stale news.

CountArach

01-24-2009, 10:26

I think problem number one is people killing one another worldwide for their own gain. This is the most basic manifestation of that bankruptcy.
Woah, woah, woah. Settle down here. What does a woman who has an abortion gain?

LittleGrizzly

01-24-2009, 10:31

Woah, woah, woah. Settle down here. What does a woman who has an abortion gain?

a few months without discomfort and a lifetime without the kid...

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2009, 16:57

Woah, woah, woah. Settle down here. What does a woman who has an abortion gain?

Is that a serious question?

HoreTore

01-24-2009, 16:58

Woah, woah, woah. Settle down here. What does a woman who has an abortion gain?

Freedom.

And I have to say, that is quite worth the price of a lump of cells.

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2009, 17:35

Freedom.

And I have to say, that is quite worth the price of a lump of cells.

I would agree. Freedom IS worth the price of a lump of cells. HOWEVER, "lumps of cells" are not what is in question here. A distinct and clearly individual human beign is what is beign destroyed because the mother is not happy with her initial choice.

I'm not agaisnt the removal of a tumor, growth or hairs - but when that "tumor" sucks its thumb after 10 weeks, has its own fingerprints and genetic code -distinct from its mother - I know that it is much more than a tumor.

HoreTore

01-24-2009, 17:37

I would agree. Freedom IS worth the price of a lump of cells. HOWEVER, "lumps of cells" are not what is in question here. A distinct and clearly individual human beign is what is beign destroyed because the mother is not happy with her initial choice.

I'm not agaisnt the removal of a tumor, growth or hairs - but when that "tumor" sucks its thumb after 10 weeks, has its own fingerprints and genetic code -distinct from its mother - I know that it is much more than a tumor.

So before 10 wees it's all good then?

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2009, 17:40

So before 10 wees it's all good then?

http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-fetal-development-index

You tell me. Is it unacceptable after 10 weeks?

My problem is that we can forge a consensus in the US but refuse to. "That which has no consensus cannot last." I say that it is unnaceptable and ammoral from day 1 of the pregnancy. Do you say that it is acceptable without question until the 10th week? We can come together after 10 weeks. I won't say that it is acceptable before then, you won't say that it is acceptable after that (you as in the majority of americans who beleive abortion rights should be preserved in the first trimester). We could then make exceptions as to the life of the mother in the second and third trimesters.

Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something. WE save a ton of babies in the process, you retain the peoples right to distinguish what is an acceptable form of homicide under certain circumstances (IE: military, capital, self defense). Eventually I beleive that peoples hearts will soften and that they will ban the practice entirely OR learn how to use birth control effectively - (like holding your testicles and ovaries in a jar until you intend to use them :-))

rory_20_uk

01-24-2009, 17:41

I would agree. Freedom IS worth the price of a lump of cells. HOWEVER, "lumps of cells" are not what is in question here. A distinct and clearly individual human being is what is being destroyed because the mother is not happy with her initial choice.

I'm not against the removal of a tumour, growth or hairs - but when that "tumour" sucks its thumb after 10 weeks, has its own fingerprints and genetic code -distinct from its mother - I know that it is much more than a tumor.

Miscarriages have their own genetic code. That's true from fertilisation. One could argue that due to mitosis and genetic rearrangement unfertilised eggs have their own genetic code.

Ancephalic pregnancies also have thumbs. They're not viable though. Merely making 10 weeks doesn't equal a baby, however hard pro-lifers try to fudge the 40 week gestation into a forgone conclusion.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

01-24-2009, 17:45

http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-fetal-development-index

You tell me. Is it unacceptable after 10 weeks?

Because of the bigger impact(surgery required instead of a pill, etc) on the mother, abortions should be done as early as possible.

The lump of cells remain a lump of cells, however. The lump of cells is not born, it's not living, but the mother is. And I only care about those who are actually born, those who are living. They get to choose whether the thing in her belly is a lump of cells, or a baby-to-be.

So no, it's not unacceptable after 10 weeks.

btw, did anyone else notice that the baby in that link changed sex every month? Another argument against it being a human being, isn't it?

rory_20_uk

01-24-2009, 17:50

You can still use drugs to induce labour rather than surgery in early pregnancy. Surgical intervention is also an option.

But obviously the later the bigger the mass to remove.

Phenotypic gender doesn't happen at the start of the pregnancy. i guess they were hedging their bets.

~:smoking:

ICantSpellDawg

01-24-2009, 17:55

hard pro-lifers try to fudge the 40 week gestation into a forgone conclusion.

~:smoking:

Are you saying that someone isn't a living homo sapien until they magically appear our of someones vagina? I fail to see what location has to do with whether something is alive or not. I see why it is an issue because physical living space is shared, but the idea that because someone hasn't reached adulthood they are not a human being is absurd.

rory_20_uk

01-24-2009, 18:02

Are you saying that someone isn't a living homo sapien until they magically appear our of someones vagina? I fail to see what location has to do with whether something is alive or not. I see why it is an issue because physical living space is shared, but the idea that because someone hasn't reached adulthood they are not a human being is absurd.

:strawman3:

"Adulthood?" Who said that? Oh, -you.

Often "life" is decided on whether the organism can live independently. As babies approach term they pass this test, earlier on they don't. Modern medicine means there are many grey areas where persons are either temporarily or permanently alive only due to the input of machinery.

My view is fine in first trimester, needs an increasingly good reason in the second and in the third then it's an early delivery, not an abortion.

~:smoking: