National media focus on small gun-control protest, miss massive March for Life

posted at 1:51 pm on January 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Nearly a half-million people gathered in the nation’s capital in a political protest on Friday.  What did the nation’s news media consider more newsworthy than the March for Life, which opposes abortion?  Well, a crowd that amounted to 1/500th of the size of the March For Life, and the scandal of the 11-inch foot long.  Newsbusters breaks it down:

The annual pro-life march, this year marking the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision, drew tens of thousands to Washington, DC on Friday, but didn’t garner a syllable of coverage on Friday’s World News on ABC nor the CBS Evening NewsYet on Saturday night, both newscasts highlighted a pro-gun control protest in DC which CBS anchor Jim Axelrod pegged at drawing “close to a thousand people.”

The NBC Nightly News noted both protests and on Friday night also reported how a federal appeals court unanimously decided that President Obama violated the Constitution when he made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, a rebuke neither ABC nor CBS found newsworthy.

This 15 seconds from Brian Williams was the totality of broadcast network evening newscast coverage of the pro-life march: “In Washington today, thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators marched to the steps of the Supreme Court, protesting the landmark decision that legalized abortion. Annual ‘March for Life,’ as it’s called, this year coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Roe versus Wade decision.”

Heck, even NPR did better than that:

Organizers say today’s March for Life rally in the nation’s capital may bring more anti-abortion activists to the streets than last year’s estimated 400,000. By midday, a large crowd was gathered in the National Mall, listening to speeches from former GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum and others and preparing to march toward the Capitol and the Supreme Court.

“We’ve seen lots of markers that would show that,” Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, tells NBC Washington. “Our hotel block sold out a month in advance of what it’s ever sold out, and we’ve had more media requests than ever before, so we expect really record-breaking crowds.”

Fox News says the crowd was “considerably larger” than last year, based on an estimate from the National Park Service:

Undaunted by bitterly cold temperatures and a forecast for snow, pro-life marchers came to Washington for the March for Life — as they have for four decades — determined, they say, to instill a culture of life in a nation that has seen 55 million abortions since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The National Park Service no longer does crowd size estimates, but organizers believed the crowd Friday to be considerably larger than last year’s 400,000 people.

So a march “considerably larger” than 400,000 people opposing abortion draws no notice from the national news media — but one of less than a thousand does?  Color me shocked, shocked at this expression of bias.

On the other hand, this is truly a national emergency:

While ABC on Friday night didn’t find time for either the pro-life march or the court ruling, anchor Diane Sawyer made time for an update on the supposed controversy over complaints Subway’s “foot-long” subs are sometimes only eleven inches long. Horrors. Sawyer allocated  28 seconds to this:

And now at the top of our Instant Index tonight is that apology from Subway. Fans of the foot-long sandwich, you may recall, reported that some of those sandwiches are falling short by one inch. 11 inches, not 12 inches long. Well today, Subway said they are sorry. And they’re redoubling their efforts to assure consistency and correct length in every sandwich they serve. And patrons will still be getting out their rulers.

I have no issue with highlighting the appellate court’s ruling on recess appointments over a DC protest march.  That’s real news, and it’s stunning that ABC didn’t even bother to report it on their Friday night newscast.  We led with it on the Hugh Hewitt Show, which airs before ABC’s national news broadcast.  That ruling has far-reaching consequences not just for future presidencies, but also would negate an entire year’s worth of work in two key agencies.  That’s a little more important than an apology from a sandwich shop over the length of their buns.

Meanwhile, if after all the media hype and Obama administration hysteria over gun control can’t even get 1,000 people to turn out for a rally in Washington DC, what does that say about the issue?  Maybe people are more interested in sandwich control than gun control.

Update: The networks aren’t the only media outlets mailing it in, either.  Mollie Hemingway catches the New York Times republishing PR releases as news, although she gives the Gray Lady high marks for reporting on the March for Life at all (via Deacon Greg):

I want to point out that the Times also ran a straight news story covering the march and, unlike any year I can recall, it actually ran in the print edition and not just as a brief mention on a blog post. The story that has outraged so many folks is the primary story on the march that ran in a more prominent position than the straight story. In fact, it ran above the fold of the national news section, headlined “In Fight Over Life, a New Call by Catholics.” …

Believe it or not, this is basically just a press release from the same savvy, highly funded PR firm that has been rolling reporters for the last year. One is beginning to think they enjoy the ride.

The group that put out the letter is … drum roll please …

… Faith in Public Life. Yes, that Faith in Public Life! They’re the ones who came up with the highly successful “Nuns on the Bus” tour that got embarrassingly uncritical coverage for an anti-Paul Ryan campaign featuring not one, not two, but as many asthree to four nuns. We’re talking front-page coverage in major media outlets, gushy broadcasts, the works.

You couldn’t pay for coverage this nice. Except, I guess, that George Soros and his fellow donors do pay for this coverage. But you know what I mean.

But do they pay for an 11-inch foot long sandwich?  That’s the question the news media wants to ask!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So if you and your wife have a pistol for home defense purposes, what happens if you’re incapacitated during the fight, on vacation, at work, running errands, et al.

I guess she’s just grist for the mill, eh libfree? nonpartisan, what about you? She deserves to die because her husband is out getting milk?

Washington Nearsider on May 17, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Make this known

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM

May I repeat, Liberalism, where “thoughtful” legislation, unsubstantiated by empirical data, unfunded and unwanted by the majority of its law abiding, productive citizens, must be written in an effort to demonstrate “we did something”. (See Obamacare, Guns, War on Poverty, Dept of Ed.,Head Start, “Green” programs, Fannie Mae, Job Stimulus, etc).

hillsoftx on May 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Yeah, I’m sure somebody’s going to hack up the Colt 1911 they got from their grandfather just to try to please these whiners.

Something tells me the criminal’s gun won’t have this nifty feature.

CurtZHP on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Chocolate bullets, now that’s something women would die for.

antipc on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Probably be programmed to shoot conservatives.

justltl on May 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM

How about knives? Do they want to retrofit knives with this lovely technology?

Baseball bats?

Lead pipes?

How about being strangled by bare hands, do your hands need this as well?

ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM

gotta really start teaching gun owners how to double-tap. One in the pumphouse, one in the breakerbox.

kurtzz3 on May 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM

No charges expected against the homeowner.

cozmo on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Didn’t these clowns pass the ban on plastic guns because of a movie? What was that movie called with John Malkovich?

How can any self respecting human being take any democrat seriously? They live in a fantasyland!

jawkneemusic on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

The idea that you’re going to require and retrofit the technology is, at best expensive and impractical.

Isn’t that the point?

If anybody would want a gun like that, it’s the cops, since they face the constant threat of their gun being taken away by criminals and used against them. So, why don’t you see departments armed with them or laws requiring cops to have them? Simple: They don’t exist — at least not with levels of reliability needed when you life depends on them working.

You want us to have a James Bond gun, Congressman Tierney? Government first.

Socratease on May 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Once again. I’m humbled by the simple honesty and wisdom of children. :)

*pauses for effect*

His teacher Jenny Aicher says his letter suggested that if guns shot chocolate bullets, no one would get hurt.

I demand that all police officers and military personnel immediately load their guns with chocolate bullets.

Axe on May 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM

It’s tempting to say that Biden’s mind operates on the level of a 2nd grader, but more likely he was just being nice to the kid.

Socratease on May 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Make this known

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM

It’s not about gun control. Do not co-op the language. When they own the language, they own the argument. There is a reason they are doing this… ~ Don Bongino

Fallon on May 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM

A$$clowns.

jawkneemusic on May 17, 2013 at 6:16 PM

How about being strangled by bare hands, do your hands need this as well?

ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Well, my hands are registered as lethal weapons… /

squint on May 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Liberals are so dumb. Do they really believe in the sh!t they throw out there as ideas? What a complete waste of time they are.

tommer74 on May 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM

It’s tempting to say that Biden’s mind operates on the level of a 2nd grader, but more likely he was just being nice to the kid.

Socratease on May 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

We are talking about the guy who has given notoriously illegal advice on using shotguns on at least two separate occasions. And despite his protestations to the contrary, if he could make chocolate squirt guns the most lethal machine available to the public, he would.

Fenris on May 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I guess she’s just grist for the mill, eh libfree? nonpartisan, what about you? She deserves to die because her husband is out getting milk?
 
Washington Nearsider on May 17, 2013 at 6:03 PM

 
That’s easy. Tackling:
 

come on, rodge, answer the question: was jarder loughner tackled while attempting to reload? could he have been tackled earlier had he not had so many goddamn bullets in one mag?
 
sesquipedalian on December 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM

rogerb on May 17, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Then they’d regulate and penalize chocolate ownership.

catmman on May 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Just wait till a kid brings a couple of the chocolate rounds to school.

tommer74 on May 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Just wait till a kid brings a couple of the chocolate rounds to school.

tommer74 on May 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM

It’s all funny until someone gets “fudged up”.

squint on May 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Tierney, sounds like tyranny. Can you imagine, tho, how many jobs in Big Chocolate this would create? With all the different calibers out there the jobs list is endless.

Kissmygrits on May 17, 2013 at 6:25 PM

“If we had guns that shot chocolate, not only would our country be safer, it would be happier. People love chocolate.”

– Joe Biden

Only if they have a creamy peanut butter center!

Kingfisher on May 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM

You can take down a unicorn with those chocolate bullets you know.

justltl on May 17, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Tierney, sounds like tyranny. Can you imagine, tho, how many jobs in Big Chocolate this would create? With all the different calibers out there the jobs list is endless.

I volunteer to test the quality of each caliber.

Do you think the bullet shortage will cause this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI

Kingfisher on May 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Here’s a sneaky trick. Lick the grip of your handgun. Then, if a bad guy gets it, you’ll know that he is likely to get a really nasty sniffle.

(Don’t know what I’m trying to prove with this. Just made me chuckle when I thought if it)

kurtzz3 on May 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM

You are a good boy,

J. Biden

Dayum. Just Dayum.

notropis on May 17, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Well, my hands are registered as lethal weapons… /

squint on May 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Just wait until they are fully regulated… and if you don’t ask permission for their use, why, they will have to make you mostly armless.

ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Back in the 1980s when I was an FFL licensed dealer, ammo manufacturer and gunsmith; a few people actually invented and marketed this concept, and a few silly cop shops and a few silly individuals actually purchased and implemented it.

Some were simple magnetic devices that operated from a magnet in a ring. Others were electronic, although I forget what the (un) locking mechanism was.

Batteries failed at inopportune times, Magnetic rings didn’t happen to be on the hand when bad guys broke in. Good people died because of it..

And while the concept might save lives of good guys who get disarmed in a fight, there is no way that a retrofitted firearm couldn’t be ‘unretrofitted’ in minutes, so that wouldn’t prevent crimes from being committed with stolen firearms.

LegendHasIt on May 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM

And as far as chocolate goes…. Milk chocolate may not be instantly lethal….

Lets see, a Hershey’s kiss is about .72 Caliber.
How long before one of the YouTube gun channels loads up a 12 ga shell with one and shoots it at a watermelon?

But some of that dark chocolate is awfully hard, and I don’t think I’d want to be hit by a chunk traveling 1000fps. (You would probably need a gas check and a refrigerated barrel to get much more velocity.. I wonder what Hoppe’s No. 9 and chocolate smell like in solution. ;-)

LegendHasIt on May 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM

This concept has been “developing” for the last 20 years. And has a long way to go before it becomes FOOLPROOF. Last time I checked, their reliability was still between 75-80%. So if you fell into that other 20% at a critical time, guess the manufacturer would give you your money back.

Tierney is a FOOL. Next thing you know, Teirney will be insisting that everyone use Teleporters to go from one place to another.

It works in the movies.

GarandFan on May 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Again when the FBI and the Presidential Security Detail adopt both the Chocolate Bullet and this Personalization Technology, I will adopt it…

BTW, a chocolate .40 cal pistol round is just a dangerous at 5-10 metres as a metal, I would imagine. Chocolate, like water isn’t “soft” at hi speeds….1-2 grams of ANYTHING moving at several hundred metres per second is going to hurt and do some damage.

JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Tierney is a FOOL. Next thing you know, Teirney will be insisting that everyone use Teleporters to go from one place to another.

I was hoping for the Holodeck, first, myself….Veronica Zemanova and I have a “rendezvous” if you know what I mean….

JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Dear Myles,

I am sorry it to me so very long to respond to your letter. I really like your idea. If we had guns that shot chocolate, not only would our country be safer, it would be happier. People love chocolate.

You are a good boy,

J. Biden

Ray Nagin was mayor of “Chocolate City”.

Biden wants to be VP of “Chocolate Nation”.

Bitter Clinger on May 17, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Has the race card been played yet? Chocolate bullets has to be code words for something bad.

meci on May 17, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I say we go the whole “Dredd” route….IIRC, when a baddie tried to use the rookie’s gun on her, it exploded, taking off the baddie’s arm! I’dd prefer that I think…

Also, can anyone explain how the Judge’s weapons worked? I’m puzzled how one small ammunition module could produce such a plethora and multiplicity of rounds…..

JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Just wait until they are fully regulated… and if you don’t ask permission for their use, why, they will have to make you mostly armless.

ajacksonian on May 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

They can have my hands when they can pry them from my cold dead wrists!

squint on May 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Until the day comes when you find out your kids ate all the ammunition.

Bishop on May 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Ok, say this technology was available and my husband was the one the gun was fitted for.

He goes out of town, someone breaks into the house. The gun is of no use to me.

Idiots!!!!

Barred on May 17, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Back in the 1980s when I was an FFL licensed dealer, ammo manufacturer and gunsmith; a few people actually invented and marketed this concept, and a few silly cop shops and a few silly individuals actually purchased and implemented it.

Some were simple magnetic devices that operated from a magnet in a ring. Others were electronic, although I forget what the (un) locking mechanism was.

Batteries failed at inopportune times, Magnetic rings didn’t happen to be on the hand when bad guys broke in. Good people died because of it..

And while the concept might save lives of good guys who get disarmed in a fight, there is no way that a retrofitted firearm couldn’t be ‘unretrofitted’ in minutes, so that wouldn’t prevent crimes from being committed with stolen firearms.

LegendHasIt on May 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Even earlier, in the Seventies, some (redacted) tried to sell the magnetic ring version to several of our local PDs here. Trouble was, it consistently failed to work when the batteries in the revolver’s butt got weak. And since the default was “fire”, that meant that it would probably work if the perp tried to use the revolver on the officer.

By comparison, we solved the problem on the multi-county level by teaching weapon retention techniques. I.E., if perp tries to grab the sidearm, instead of pulling away, thrust forward with it like a knife. A gun barrel punch in the guts hurts. (Squeezing the trigger at the same time is optional.)

Probably the best solution was, and is, the Smith & Wesson autos with the magazine safety. If you’re about to lose control of the weapon, hit the mag release. It drops out, and the perp can’t fire the round in the chamber. I carried a 645 on duty for years for just that reason. Plus, I’d already come to appreciate the feature on my backup, a P-35 High Power.

I’ve always held that a second loaded gun is the fastest reload there is. And it should have a decently large magazine capacity. The reason being that if you’re in a situation where you need that “fast reload”, there’s a good chance you’re up against multiple assailants. And reloading either the primary or the backup might be a practical impossibility, because you’re in one of those situations in which, as the old river pilot’s saying goes,

th’ music be playin’ faster’n ye kin dance to

cheers

eon

eon on May 17, 2013 at 8:51 PM

k, say this technology was available and my husband was the one the gun was fitted for.

He goes out of town, someone breaks into the house. The gun is of no use to me.

Idiots!!!!

Silly, you can poop, pee and vomit on yourself, it’s not like you are DEFENSELESS, *SHEESH*

JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I say we go the whole “Dredd” route….IIRC, when a baddie tried to use the rookie’s gun on her, it exploded, taking off the baddie’s arm! I’dd prefer that I think…

Also, can anyone explain how the Judge’s weapons worked? I’m puzzled how one small ammunition module could produce such a plethora and multiplicity of rounds…..

JFKY on May 17, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Multiplicity, yes; plethora, no. The Lawgiver was based on an idea they apparently snitched from the original novel Logan’s Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, written back in the Sixties.

Never mind the (stupid) movie and (stupider) TV show. The original Sandman Gun was a six-shot revolver, with a cylinder that could be replaced like the magazine in an automatic. Old idea, that; the Remington and Adams revolvers had that feature, and came with spare cylinders, back in percussion days. Watch the Clint Eastwood movie Pale Rider to see the Preacher (Clint) use that feature of the Remington 1861 Army (metallic-cartridge conversion) to “speedload” during the final gunfight.

The Sandman revolver held four types of rounds;

Tangler; fired a ‘net’ of very tough fibers that entangled the target.

Gas; trank round.

Ripper; Basically a Glaser prefragmented round, except with an actual explosive charge in it. Nasty.

Homer; an infra-red homer like a Sidewinder air-to-air missile, with a Ripper “warhead”. It homed on the exact heat of a human body, 98.6 degrees F.

A set of buttons on the grip let the Sandman select the round. Usual load was two Gas, one Tangler, two Ripper, one Homer.

The Lawgiver worked on a similar setup. a triple-stack magazine held three types of round; baton (rubber bullet), standard (armor-piercing), and explosive. The Judge selected the round he or she wanted by either flipping a lever on the side (in the comics) or by voice command (in the movie). The Lawgiver was also selective-fire in the comics; trouble was, once you’d selected the type of round (say, HE), and squeezed the trigger, the gun would cheerfully fire just that type on full-auto. Leaving you without that selection until you ejected that mag and put in a full one.

The mechanism inside apparently worked like the dual-feed on some automatic cannon like the old West German Gepard Flakpanzer anti-aircraft tank (dual Oerlikon/Contraves 35mm, firing 850 rounds per minute per barrel- nasty). That setup lets the gunner shift from, say, proximity-fuzed anti-aircraft to armor-piercing HE, if while he’s on overwatch for enemy tactical air an enemy tank suddenly pops over the next rise and bears down on him. Personally, I have my doubts about anything that sophisticated working consistently in a pistol, even one the size and weight of a freakin’ .50 Desert Eagle.

To add to the hilarity, the lower “box” on the movie version was apparently supposed to be some kind of grenade launcher, which was why when Dredd (Stallone) said “grenade”, its barrel extended, and it fired instead of the “regular” barrel. If you watched the “reimagined” Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi Channel, that funky little streamlined widget under the nose of their FN Five-SeveN pistols was supposed to be the same deal.

The problem with any version of the Lawgiver is that at best, its “multistack” magazine will only be able to hold about five or six rounds of any one type of ammo, total of fifteen to eighteen rounds. That’s about what most modern 9mm service pistols hold, and supposedly in Dredd’s Mega-City One a high-capacity 9mm isn’t a big enough gun, with enough firepower, to be survivable. Hence all the Judge firepower.

Maybe what they really need is more range time. I’ve found it can work wonders. Especially with classes of recruits who only know pistols, rifles, and shotguns from…TV cop shows.

(Yes, I’ve trained such. It was emphatically not an experience to calm one’s nerves.)

cheers

eon

eon on May 17, 2013 at 9:25 PM

The Personalized Handgun Safety Act, inspired by “Skyfall,” but without the great theme song

Meh. Adele’s had much better songs that “Skyfall.”

Even this song by the male Adele The Neighbourhood was better than “Skyfall.”

Myron Falwell on May 18, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Clearly what we need is “Men” control.

ronsfi on May 18, 2013 at 7:08 AM

This has been discussed before with excruciating detail. In fact it comes up with nearly every mass shooting. Retrofitting 17th century technology with 21st is at best problematic… but most importantly, the technology is unreliable. It’ll be ready for prime time when the cops and the military adopt it.

John_G on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Because of the train wreck in Connecticut, I think we should ban trains that carry people. They are definitely dangerous, and Connecticut wants to ban anything that is dangerous. Just think about how many children are in danger because of wrecking trains!

Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I know everyone loves the biometric locks on laptops. Why not implement that wildly successful technology on all our potentially life saving devices?

For that matter, if you’re going to have an electronic lockout on your weapon, why not a dual permission system that requires both the confirmed identity of the user and clearance from your local law enforcement agency to fire? They can simply be notified by the device that you have requested clearance to fire, and some lackey can press a little red button to clear you once they feel certain you’re not going to shoot an ex lover. Or any member of a historically disadvantaged or politically favorable group, union, or mostly peaceful protest. Or an animal with a treatable illness like rabies. And no shooting of any kind on Wednesdays, of course, or during regular school hours. Or within 1000 yards of an abortion clinic or mosque. They would of course be scrupulous in ascertaining that you are current in your Obamacare payments, and that you haven’t prayed to any unapproved Deities or donated to admittedly racist tea party groups.

Other than that it would be business as usual under the bill of rights. Carry on!

TexasDan on May 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM

eon on May 17, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Dude, considering you were answering a question related to a comic book… whoa. You officially know way too much stuff.

And, yes, this is stupid technology; it always has been. If it’s an issue of the gun being picked up while it’s “laying around” then it shouldn’t be “laying around”. If it’s an issue of losing the gun in close quarters, then you probably screwed up tactically to start with, and you should use good weapons retention techniques to keep the gun instead of counting on technology to save your bacon.

BTW, what do you think will happen once the bad guy takes your disabled gun away from you? Now you’re no longer armed. At best, he’s gonna take that handgun and shove it up your Biden. At worst, he’s going to take out his weapon and kill you with it. Better to just hold onto the thing.

(And, good info, LegendHasIt and eon.)

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM