The Corner

Conservatives Vs. Science>

On the front page of the Washington Post, Mark Kaufman reports on the FDA ruling that “emergency contraception” can’t be sold over the counter, and the liberal media once again must portray the battle as conservatives versus nonideological public-interest advocates:

“The denial was a major goal of social conservatives, including members of Congress who lobbied President Bush on the issue. Reproductive-rights advocates lobbied equally hard for its approval, and yesterday they criticized the decision as misguided and a historic blot on the reputation of the FDA as a science-based agency.”

Not only is one side ideological, only one side is in favor of science? Now let’s imagine if the Washington Times reported it this way, and wonder if it would be seen as objective:

“The decision was a major blow to social liberals, who favor minors making their own contraception and abortion decisions without parental knowledge or consent. Parental-rights advocates said they were pleased the FDA put women’s health above politics.”

That’s actually what Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said in the Post story — in paragraph 10, inside the paper. See how you knew the liberal line (we’re not for willy-nilly sex, we’re for science!) in paragraph 2, but all you knew about the conservative position if you didn’t follow the story inside is that they lobbied hard? See the CWA talking points here.

Tim GrahamTim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center, where he began in 1989, and has served there with the exception of 2001 and 2002, when served ...

Recommended

The Latest