More evidence of media bias: Its sorry coverage of the 2017 Chicago March for Life

Thousands, maybe even ten thousand, pro-life proponents marched on January 15 through Chicago’s downtown, but it received only token, if that, coverage by the Chicago media. Some media reported that “hundreds” marched, which is a vast inaccuracy or a deliberate lie for any reporter who was there. To get a feel for exactly the number of marchers, you need to go to Chris Iverson’s Facebook page to see a video of the march. Or go here.

life-marchFor those who don’t do Facebook (I’ve asked Iverson to send me the embedded code so I can post it here), the camera is in a single, fixed location so that you can get a sense of how many people are marching past. The video goes on for more than five minutes before it ends, but there still are plenty of marchers yet to pass the camera.

Can the editors and reporters in Chicago’s newsrooms not understand why so many Americans consider the media to be biased. Here is a wrap-up of the coverage of the march by the Chicago media. (My apologies for missing any coverage in my Google search)

A story about preparations  for the pro-life (“anti-abortion”) march was  tucked away in the Chicago Tribune’s “community contributor”section written by, not a regular staff writer, but Montini Catholic senior Jessica Browne as part of its suburban coverage. In contrast, the day following the march, when you’d expect to see coverage (I couldn’t find any), there was a front page story, “Unity, equality, pink hats: Women’s March on Chicago calls out to thousands.” I see some irony in how the Tribune could use a front-page story about a march that is expected to draw thousands, while ignoring a march that actually drew thousands. Meanwhile, my search of the Tribune website showed four other stage-setter stories about the women’s anti-Trump march in the Tribune or its affiliate suburban paper.

The Chicago Sun-Times did a better job in its report, “Archbishop Cupich joins hundreds at March for Life rally in Chicago.” But like the Tribune, the story reported that just “hundreds” showed up.

While thousands all across the Chicago area were preparing for  pro-life march, Chicago Tonight (WTTW) reported that thousands are expected for–not the prolife march–but the Women’s March on Chicago this coming weekend, as did Chicagoist

Here’s WGN’s coverage that underplayed the number of marchers by calling them “hundreds.”

Here’s CBS-2 coverage, which included equal time for a couple hundred women showing up on Sunday to condemn Trump.

Having worked in Chicago newsrooms for decades, I think I understand the decision to not cover the march or only to give it token coverage: “They do it every year.” Exactly. Thousands turn out every year to march in all kinds of weather. What motives them? How about some interviews to explore the issue? Why is it one of the most dogged civil rights movement in the past 40-some years? Why do the activists consider it to be a civil rights and human rights issue–more than a religious issue? Do editors even know that many pro-lifers consider it to be a civil rights/human rights issue? Interview some women who had decided to have an abortion, but changed their minds. Where they “coerced by pro-life “extremists”? There are some great personal stories in the crowd, but I guess we’ll never hear them.

Here is a more comprehensive video provided by a pro-life group. How would you describe the number of  participants and level of energy? Please note the number of young women who are totally involved.

An interesting aside: The question that pro-choice advocates don’t want to answer (not from the Chicago march):

Okay, your turn. Begin the ad hominem attacks.

Related: Colorado State University refuses to fund pro-life group because some students “won’t necessarily feel affirmed in attending the event.”

Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Nice job Dennis! Like you, it's frustrating to watch people we used to work with make such biased decisions about news coverage. But thanks to Facebook, their political and social views (far left in most cases) is very apparent. They would cover it if it was an LGBT or Black Lives Matter march, regardless of how many times it happens. It's very disappointing to see this happen, but it most definitely supports the lack of respect a majority of Americans now have for the news media. What will change this biased trend is audience. When enough viewers stop watching TV news or reading newspapers because of the biased coverage, it will change.

  • In reply to John Ruane:

    Thanks, John.

  • fb_avatar

    Newsroom bias against developments such as the March for Life is not particularly against the pro-life position as much as it is the truly uninformed quality of news judgment by mid-level editors. The left wing agenda is so embedded in their lives and their values that these editors simply don't know how to judge whether a development in their cities is worth covering. They default to "old news" and don't cover something like the March for LIfe. If they are wrong, and the story is worth more than they thought, they can always recover with a follow-up tomorrow.

  • Just wondering. Were you three marching too?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Your implication is that you have to attend something to write about it? No, I wasn't there, but so what?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    No, I was just wondering because of the vehemence of all of your positions. Maybe the organizers failed to effectively promote the march. Do you have evidence that they did their due diligence in this respect and the news outlets deliberately denied them coverage?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Having been in the news business, I can't believe that editors and producers didn't know about the upcoming march. Google "Chicago march for life 2017" and you'll find that your suggestion is mistaken. Are you suggesting that the march organizers are so stupid that they wouldn't alert the media that thousands will be marching? A stretch.

  • Why does once the baby is out of womb, do pro lifers stop caring?

    I don't you marching about child abuse.

  • I believe in fairness of coverage of all events. I agree, it certainly appears not only in Chicago but across the country, rallies and marches for life don't get covered as much as other topics considered more "hot button," even if the marchers are as passionate and the numbers off marchers are about equal. I have said before, I am a true moderate. I grow weary of coverage that isn't fair and balanced. I think it's VERY important to cover the women's march, black lives matter, etc. AND cover pro life marches. And, HJW49, I also grow weary of uninformed comments. Of course, it's a free country, so you can comment what you like. But let me ask you - your assumption without any real proof (show it to me if there is specific proof) is that pro lifers "don't care" about babies. How do you know this? Are you confusing people who abuse children with people who march for life? Just asking, but do you believe that aborting all "unnecessary" babies will end child abuse? Those people that I know who march for life also volunteer to help children at risk (and their families) by running local PADS, volunteering to foster children (some even adopt children locally and from other parts of the world), working at women's centers to help abused women and their families find productive jobs, helping fathers get on their feet and re-united with their families, and travel to foreign countries on mission trips to help people in need. They stand up for the elderly, and actually hold candle light vigils to oppose death sentences. Yes, even for those who've killed others, they don't think anyone has the right to take another person's life in such a manner. And, by the way, I also know plenty of people who are pro choice who do these SAME kinds good things and then some for others. I know many good people who are passionate and caring and take action to help, but have different perspectives. This is why I despise negative generalization comments from anyone. But here's one from me: There are too many people around these days who makes "points" with no meat behind what they're saying. In conclusion, I say, do the best job you can, journalists, to report ALL the news. And to the general public, think (with facts and a balanced perspective) before you speak (or write). This is a much better way to approach being a productive person and getting good things done.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • In reply to Aquinas wired:
      Biden plagiarized that from Washington. Biden is great a plagiarizing. Biden was a freshman senator when Washington was president.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Joe thought the military did nappy-nappy every day at 3pm like him. I hope they keep him from playing with…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Is your anonymous source who called the President a "blockhead" serving in the military? If he or sheis, I don't…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Would you call George Washington a "blockhead" for saying "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • "On Thursday, Scheller pleaded guilty to showing contempt toward officials, showing disrespect toward superior commissioned officers, willfully disobeying a superior…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: