Media Malpractice at March for Life

At the 2010 March for Life the media set new standards for journalistic fraud. [Get full video at www.thineeyes.org] In its lead photo, CNN showed five pro-abortion picketers, all that could be found, and ignored the 300000 pro-life marchers. CNN’s Rick Sanchez wondered out loud which group dominated. Newsweek claimed that most participants were in their 60′s when, in fact, most were under 25. This video sets the record straight.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

This entry was posted in March For Life and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Media Malpractice at March for Life

  1. VitalSigns1 says:

    Let me tell all you hypocritical pro lifers something! That CHILD that is in the woman’s body is a product of the BLOOD of the motherfucker who committed the rape!! It’s not exactly innocent!!!

  2. LoneRookRS1 says:

    Fuck CNN, and all the biased American news channels. Choose BBC news.

  3. pursuing222 says:

    180movie.com

  4. ecvolleyball88 says:

    Thank you, I went to the March this year and was astounded at how badly the media portrayed us. Good job trying to set the record straight. God bless!

  5. suuuuuuuperman64 says:

    I am pro-abortion and while I disagree with pro-life people I will say that media bias and, even worse, the media ignoring important issues, is even worse. Abortion is a complex issue since you can’t ignore children of rape and incest who are guaranteed a terrible life in this country as well as the reality that sometimes abortion is the only option if it means the death of the mother (this does happen). It’s not an easy issue so far be it for me to call these protesters stupid.

  6. suuuuuuuperman64 says:

    Um, which country do you live in? If that were the case you’d have liberals outraged over veiled Muslims, teachers wearing crosses and the religious practice of never shaving one’s beard. As an (albeit somewhat conservative) liberal I only wish that the government not pass laws based purely on religion. For example, making polygamy legal based purely on it being a Mormon practice. That being said the news should not be biased, even if it’s to my disadvantage.

  7. Mike4Dogma says:

    All – The Vatican-2 heretic cult, founded in 1965 at the Vatican *cannot possibly be* the Catholic Church … since it “teaches” the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic Dogma. The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies against Dogma. Site > Immaculata-one (dot) com Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic * proof * of heresy at the Vatican

  8. Mike4Dogma says:

    Continuing … Because of … the Catholic Dogma on AUTOMATIC excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the V-2 cult) … … we were all placed, body and soul, outside of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”. Section 13.2 > Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication. Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for *re-entering* Christianity (the Catholic Church) … Formal Abjuration also provided here.

  9. Nonamearisto says:

    Did I mention that a liberal is all for freedom of religion so long as one never practices that religion or speaks of it outside of a church? 

  10. Nonamearisto says:

    A liberal will chain himself to a tree to save it, but won’t lift a finger to save an unborn human. A liberal is someone who is for freedom of speech until you disagree with him, then it’s “hate speech” A liberal is someone who is for unlimited freedom and irresponsibility, as long as the government pays for it. A liberal is someone who speaks out against human rights abuses committed by foreign governments, then blames the US for those crimes.

  11. payasoinfeliz says:

    @TheHardout2005 lol, you totally dont get what it is youre reading on that wiki page. its not enough to say humans are different/special because its generally accepted as a “rule.”

  12. TheHardout2005 says:

    and not I. You see, you are trying to (going by wikipedia) cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule (that it is morally wrong to kill human beings). I, on the other hand, have not. I’m just applying the rule. Furthermore, I’ve given you a good reason why humans have moral value over beasts. You have two options now: you can admit your fault, or keep digging yourself a hole. I will not pounce on you for being intellectually honest.

  13. TheHardout2005 says:

    Haha wow. What an incredible misunderstanding! Not only that, but you fail to see the position you’ve put yourself in. Having nowhere else to go, you have equated humans with beasts. By doing that, abortion is no longer morally wrong, and neither is rape, incest, other forms of murder, genocide, etc. After all – it’s just on par with killing an animal, right? There’s nothing special about humans, is there? Now, special pleading is an example, in fact, of what you are doing CONT

  14. payasoinfeliz says:

    no, it isnt–as i already explained to the other guy that tried to come to your defense. favoring one living thing over another just because its human is special pleading.

  15. TheHardout2005 says:

    I think you’ve committed many personal attacks against me – and that is what’s called an ad hom. Now, I didn’t necessarily claim they were fallacies, in the sense of you attacking me and not the argument (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt), but they are ad hom attacks. As for special pleading, you think that claiming that humans have more moral value than beasts is a case of it. Who doesn’t know what special pleading is, then?

  16. payasoinfeliz says:

    baseless is crying ad hominem despite my having already addressed his arguments–ive been arguing with him for weeks. you shouldve had a wank instead of running in here like a virgin with a raging hard-on.

  17. carnivorousslushee23 says:

    An astute and impeccably reasoned reply. Might you mind presenting an argument instead of baselessly casting aspersions on my education? (Which, at least regarding philosophy and argument, seems to have been more comprehensive and/or effective than yours)

  18. payasoinfeliz says:

    youre another guy who doesnt know what hes talking about. i hope you didnt pay for that education.

  19. carnivorousslushee23 says:

    Wrong. The ad hominem fallacy applies when you attack a person personally and not their argument, which is what you did. You implied that Hardout’s arguments were useless and ought to be ignored because he “tell[s] lie[s]” and has no functioning brain. In other words, ad hominem. Oh, and non sequitur is a specific fallacy; it applies to formal fallacies only. The ad hominem is not a formal fallacy; it’s an example of a red herring. Again, learn your philosophy before bloviating.

  20. payasoinfeliz says:

    no, bro. fallacies are when conclusions do not follow from premises given in an argument. an ad hominem fallacy would be something like, “you like to eat nutella, therefore, your argument on us foreign policy is wrong.” non sequitur. all fallacies are non sequiturs. common mistake. its not an ad hominem just to make fun of someone or call them names.

Leave a Reply