Report: Media Bias

American Pro-Life Encyclopedia

CHAPTER 124. THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THE MEDIA’S BIASES

CHAPTER 125. THE MEDIA: ANTI-CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA CORPS

CHAPTER 126. THE AMERICAN MEDIA: PRO-ABORTION, AND IT SHOWS

CHAPTER 127. THE MEDIA’S PRO-SODOMITE BIAS

==============================

CHAPTER 124. THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THE MEDIA’S BIASES

“The statesman is an easy man,

He tells his lies by rote;

The journalist makes up his lies,

And takes you by the throat.”

-- Irish poet and dramatist William Butler Yeats, “The Old Stone Cross.”

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The news media -- television, radio, magazines, and newspapers -- does an excellent job of reporting the news. It is unbiased and completely neutral on the issue of reproductive choice and gay rights and all of the other sensitive social issues of our time.

It also represents Christians and adherents of other religions in a fair and evenhanded manner.

Introduction.

“We report news, not truth. There is no such thing as objectivity. Any reporter who tells you he’s objective is lying to you.”-- Syndicated columnist Linda Ellerbee.[1]

Our media generally represent themselves as intelligent, fair-minded individuals who always give us the news in a calm, dispassionate, and unprejudiced manner, allowing all sides of each issue equal consideration and air time.

However, even media representatives, in rare moments of off-camera honesty, acknowledge their biases, which run very deep indeed.

The only people who claim that the media is truly impartial are those who benefit from its not-so-subtle biases: Homosexuals, pro-abortionists, porn pushers, and pro-euthanasia activists. No knowledgeable Christian activist believes in the media’s self-assumed veneer of fairness.

A Definition of “Media.”

“Television -- a medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.”-- American comedian Ernie Kovacs.[2]

Who They Are.

The “media” can be defined as that group of persons whose professions involve the use of communications to transmit ideas and information to a large number of people. This media may be scheduled on a regular basis (magazines and newspapers and programmed radio and television) or intermittently (motion pictures, books, and art exhibits).

Their Power.

Needless to say, the media are the most influential group of individuals and corporations in the world relative to their numbers due to their control of communications networks. They are an elite, highly-paid professional force who manipulate public opinion on a vast scale.

In most Communist countries, the government uses the media as a tool to keep the masses ignorant, pacified, and compliant. The situation seems to be the reverse in the United States: The media as a body generally erodes confidence in the government with its constant attacks and ridicule of the administration, and is justifiably proud of its ability to motivate large numbers of people to take concrete action.

The Lichter-Rothman Study On Media Attitudes.

“I think we are destroying the minds of America. And that’s been one of my lifelong ambitions.”-- John Kricfalusi, producer-director of The Ren & Stimpy Show .[3]

Background.

In 1979 and 1980, veteran researchers S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman conducted hour-long interviews with 240 members of the most prestigious media establishments in the United States, including the New York Times , the Washington Post , the Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek Magazines, U.S. News and World Report, all of the news departments at CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and all of the major public broadcasting stations.

Their studies included a complete cross-section of the professions at each corporation: Reporters, department and bureau heads, syndicated columnists, anchormen, producers, news executives, and correspondents.

Results of the Study.

Figures 124-1 and 124-2 summarize the results of the Lichter-Rothman study.

Figure 124-1 summarizes the characteristics of the American television, movie, and media elite, and compares them with those of the general American public.

Figure 124-2 summarizes the attitudes of the American media elite regarding important social issues.

FIGURE 124-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN MEDIA ELITE

Characteristic	Television Elite	Movie Elite	Media Elite	Average Media	General Public
General Demographics
White	99%	99%	95%	98%	61%
Male	98%	99%	79%	92%	49%
From Northeast corridor	56%	58%	68%	61%	38%
From metropolitan area	82%	81%	42%	68%	65%
From “professional” family	42%	36%	40%	39%	6%
College graduates	75%	63%	93%	77%	21%
Postgraduate study	31%	24%	55%	37%	6%
Personal income	$175,000	$185,000	$46,000	$135,000	$17,700
Family income	$235,000	$275,000	$48,000	$186,000	$23,700
Political Outlook
Self-described liberal	75%	66%	54%	65%	27%
Self-described moderate	11%	17%	27%	18%	41%
Self-described conservative	14%	17%	19%	17%	32%
Religious Factors
Agnostic or atheist/none	31%	55%	50%	45%	9%
Protestant	12%	11%	20%	14%	56%
Jewish	38%	21%	14%	24%	2%
Catholic	5%	6%	12%	8%	28%
Other	7%	7%	4%	6%	2%
Attends church weekly	7%	4%	8%	6%	42%
Attend church seldom/never	93%	88%	85%	89%	25%
Voting Record (presidential elections)
Voted Democrat in 1964	80%	76%	94%	83%	61%
Voted Democrat in 1968	82%	82%	87%	83%	43%
Voted Democrat in 1972	72%	78%	81%	77%	38%
Voted Democrat in 1976	49%	51%	81%	60%	50%

Reference: S. Robert Lichter, professor at George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman, professor at Smith College. A three-part series on the influence and attitudes of the media in society. National Federation for Decency Journal , August 1986 (television elite, pages 4 to 7); September 1986 (movie elite, pages 4 to 6); and October 1986 (media elite, pages 11 to 15). Reference for public voting and religious affiliations: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition), 991 pages. Table 417, “Vote Cast for President, By Political Parties: 1920 to 1988.” Also Table 75, “Religious Preference, Church Membership and Attendance: 1957 to 1988.”

FIGURE 124-2 AMERICAN MEDIA ELITE ATTITUDES REGARDING THE LIFE ISSUES

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Abortion on demand should remain legal.
Television elite	91%	6%	1%	5%
Movie elite	92%	4%	0%	4%
Media elite	79%	11%	5%	5%
Average media		94%	6%
General public		51%	49%
Adultery is acceptable.
Television elite	19%	32%	33%	16%
Movie elite	19%	40%	29%	13%
Media elite	20%	34%	32%	15%
Average media		55%	45%
General public		30%	70%
Homosexuality is acceptable.
Television elite	49%	31%	15%	5%
Movie elite	45%	24%	21%	7%
Media elite	45%	31%	16%	9%
Average media		75%	25%
General public		34%	66%
Homosexuals should teach in public schools.
Television elite	66%	20%	9%	6%
Movie elite	64%	22%	9%	4%
Media elite	54%	31%	12%	3%
Average media		86%	14%
General public		27%	73%

Study Conclusions.

Using the information they compiled, Lichter and Rothman drew several extremely important and informative conclusions regarding the American media elite. These conclusions are summarized below.

· The media elite are definitely not drawn from the mainstream of American society. They are the children of privileged upbringings and social endowment.

· According to television’s creators, they are not ‘in it’ just for the money. They also seek to move their audience toward their own vision of “the good society.”

Of the television elite;

66% believe that television should promote social reform;

88% think that television is not critical of traditional and religious values;

70% think that there isn’t too much sex on television; and

41% believe that there isn’t too much violence on television.

Affirmation of the Lichter-Rothman Study.

Predictably, the Lichter-Rothman study was lambasted for studying too small a sample (240 persons) and for interviewing only those media elite who worked for large, nationally-based organizations.

In order to resolve the debate, the Los Angeles Times set out to check the study’s conclusions. Its huge 1985 study of 3,000 journalists working across the country at 621 newspapers concluded that “Members of the press are predominantly liberal, considerably more liberal than the general public.” Its conclusions coincided almost exactly with those of the Lichter-Rothman study.

In a second affirmation, the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company conducted a study entitled “American Values in the 80s: The Impact of Belief.” The study was based upon 2,018 hour-long interviews of members of the public and 1,700 hour-long interviews of media leaders.[4]

The Connecticut Mutual Life study showed how out of step the media are compared to the general public on the two most critical life issues, abortion and homosexuality, as shown below.

RESULTS OF THE CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE STUDY OF MEDIA ATTITUDES

Agree with Statement	Public	Media
Abortion is immoral	65%	36%
Homosexuality is immoral	71%	42%

Reference. The Connecticut Mutual Life study is described in Dave Farrell. “The Media is the Message.” Human Life Review , Spring 1986, pages 45 to 55.

Results of the Second Study.

Lichter and Rothman conducted a second study in which they asked journalists whom they consulted when they were seeking expert advice in four areas regarding sensitive social issues. The results of this survey are as follows.

RESULTS OF THE LICHTER-ROTHMAN SURVEY ON JOURNALIST CONSULTANTS

	Expert(s) Consulted Were;
Issue	Liberal	Conservative
Welfare	75%	22%
Consumer issues	63%	22%
The environment	79%	18%
Nuclear energy	77%	20%

Reference. S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter. The Media Elite: America’s New Powerbrokers. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1990.

In other words, Lichter and Rothman found that journalists simply consulted those persons whose views confirmed their own preformed opinions and attitudes.

Labeling: A Powerful Weapon.

“Objectivity was invented by journalism schools. It has very little to do with real life.”-- Talk show host Geraldo Rivera.[1]

Introduction.

Neoliberals wholeheartedly despise what they call labeling or ‘pigeonholing’ people. This practice, they say, conflicts with their notion that everyone is equal, no matter what their origin, personality, or lifestyle.

It is curious, therefore, that the demonstrably liberal media does not hesitate to attach labels to those whose value systems differ from its own.

The organization Media Watch used the Nexis news data retrieval system and a word-key search routine to pinpoint every mention of three Neoliberal and three conservative individuals and groups in 1987 and 1988 in The Washington Post , the New York Times , the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Time Magazines, and U.S. News and World Report .

The six individuals and groups studied performed parallel functions, so that the results of the study would be valid. The percentage of time they were labeled by the media is shown in Figure 124-3.

FIGURE 124-3 TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF MEDIA IDEOLOGICAL LABELING

Conservative or Liberal Entity	Percent of Time Labeled
Conservative women’s group (Concerned Women for America)	41.0% ( 25 of 61 references)
Liberal women’s group (National Organization for Women)	2.4% ( 10 of 421 references)
Conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation)	58.6% (217 of 370 references)
Liberal think tank (Brookings Institute)	1.4% ( 10 of 737 references)
Conservative judicial expert (Patrick McGuigan, Free Congress Foundation)	73.8% ( 31 of 42 references)
Liberal judicial expert (Ralph Neas, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights)	2.4% ( 3 of 125 references)
Total Instances of Ideological Labeling:
Conservative-type labeling	57.7% (273 of 473 references)
Liberal-type labeling	1.8% ( 23 of 1,283 references)

Typical Ideological Labels Used By the Media
Conservative	Liberal
New right	Mainstream
Archconservative	Liberal
Strongly conservative	Moderate
Ultraconservative	Centrist
Fringe group
Extremist
Extreme conservative
Right-wing
‘Religious right’

In summary, the conservative individual and groups were labeled 32 times as often as the Neoliberal individual and groups. Overall, the Neoliberal entities were mentioned or quoted three times as much as the conservative entities.

It is interesting to note that the National Organization for Women (160,000 members), which is only one-fourth the size of Concerned Women for America (600,000 members), was quoted six times as often in news media reports.

==========================================

“Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge.”-- American editor Erwin Knoll.[2]

[1] Linda Ellerbee and Geraldo Rivera, quoted in George Grant. “Media Bias and Abortion.” Legacy , October 1991, page 1. Newsletter of Legacy Communications, Post Office Box 680365, Franklin, Tennessee 37068.

[2] Quotes are from Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon . New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1984, 220 pages, $18.95.

[3] John Kricfalusi, producer-director of The Ren & Stimpy Show , quoted in Stefan Kanfer. “Loonier Toon Tales.” Time Magazine, April 13, 1992, page 79.

[4] The Connecticut Mutual Life study is described in Dave Farrell. “The Media is the Message.” Human Life Review , Spring 1986, pages 45 to 55.

==========================================

CHAPTER 125. THE MEDIA: ANTI-CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA CORPS

“Christians are the only group Hollywood can offend with impunity, the only creed it actually goes out of its way to insult. Clerics, from fundamentalist preachers to Catholic monks, are routinely represented as hypocrites, hucksters, sadists, and lechers. The tenets of Christianity are regularly held up to ridicule.”-- Jewish syndicated columnist Don Feder.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Our media corps is professional to the last person. Professionals do not show bias of any type, either for or against any particular religious belief or ethnic group. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to force his views off on the public through censorship.

Introduction.

Theory and Practice.

In theory , the United States Constitution guarantees the protection of the expression of any idea in a private or public place. In practice , this ideal is very far from reality. There is really no such thing as ‘unlimited free speech;’ there are certain groups and ideas that are open to ridicule under the banner of free speech, and there are other groups that are effectively protected from any criticism whatever.

This is yet another outgrowth of the “oppressor-victim” syndrome described in Chapter 9 of Volume I, “The Victim Strategy.” There is a continuing open season on those groups that have historically been perceived as “oppressors” (Whites, men, and Christians). However, any hint of adversity expressed towards those whose history includes a perception of victimization (minorities, women, sodomites) results in the predictable and tired chant of “racist, sexist, anti-gay, born-again bigots, go away!”

Open Season on Real Christians.

Perhaps the most classic example of this pervasive and insidious double standard is the media treatment of religion. As Don Feder so aptly put it, Christianity is the only creed that enjoys no protection whatever from ridicule and denigration by the secular media. Islam, because of its close relationship to Christianity, also occasionally catches a concentrated burst of abuse, usually in association with events in Iran.

Note that even Christianity is subject to the “Neoliberal exemption:” If an ultra-liberal sect of Christianity (i.e., the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, etc.) endorses divorce, abortion, sodomy, and other evils, it is welcomed with open arms and is effectively insulated from media abuse.

All creeds and religions except for true Christianity are completely protected from attack: Homosexuals, Jews, blacks, Communists, and even Satanists and witches.

A Dangerous Practice.

It is dangerous indeed to allow certain groups to be exposed to ridicule and mockery while exempting favored groups. This builds bitterness, anger and resentment in those groups not exempted. And, when violence results as a result of sheer frustration, the media are the first to condemn the very groups whose viewpoint they have been suppressing and ridiculing for so long!

Television Bias Against Christianity.

Concrete Examples.

The people who control and manipulate television programming are, for the most part, not only atheists but anti-theists . As the Lichter-Rothman studies have conclusively shown, these media representatives effectively see their duty as agents of social change. Since vital elements of this ‘social change’ include free abortion, homosexual rights, divorce, and pornography, and since the Christian Church opposes such practices, the natural impulse is to degrade and ridicule the media’s “enemy:” The Church. There is no question that the media are experts at ridicule, as shown by just a few recent examples listed in Figure 125-1.

For more detailed information on the Lichter-Rothman studies and the source of media biases, see Chapter 124.

FIGURE 125-1 EXAMPLES OF ANTI-CHRISTIAN STATEMENTS MADE BY MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES

“When you see that [Christian] fish symbol on the bumper sticker of the car in front of you, know that that is the enemy.”-- Rock musician Frank Zappa, at a pro-abortion rally in Los Angeles, April 1990. Quoted in Joseph Farah. “Hollywood’s New Blacklist: An Inside View of the Intolerance, Censorship, and Bigotry in Today’s Entertainment Industry.” New Dimensions Magazine, September 1990, pages 12 to 25.

“We have confidence in the victory of good over evil. Fight the real enemy.”-- Statement of Sinead O’Connor, made as she slowly tore up a large color photograph of Pope John Paul II. Described in “O’Connor’s Act Outrages many NBC Viewers.” The Oregonian , October 6, 1992, page D2.

“Religion has become an outdated mode, an outdated answer to some of our problems ... I tend to think that people have to start thinking on a logical level. You have to follow your heart, and your heart is not guided by anything except what is in us as thinking animals. If it means dismantling religion, we might have to do that.”-- “L.A. Law” star Corbin Bensen, quoted in Joseph Farah. “Hollywood’s New Blacklist: An Inside View of the Intolerance, Censorship, and Bigotry in Today’s Entertainment Industry.” New Dimensions Magazine, September 1990, pages 12 to 25.

“I’ve always known that Catholicism is a completely sexist, repressed, sin- and punishment-based religion.”-- Trash queen Madonna, quoted in US Magazine, June 13, 1991, and in “Madonna Blasts Catholics.” American Family Association Journal , September 1991, page 3.

“We once thought God was something out there. Now we know God exists only in the human heart.”-- Final words of William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk in the movie “Star Trek V.” Quoted in “Humanist Includes His Message in Movie.” American Family Association Journal , May 1991, page 14.

“The Catholics are promulgating a breeding program to gain political control in the United States. In the poorer countries, they favor war as a method of keeping population and resources in balance. In these poor countries, the denser population is denser because the dumber Catholics and dumber others are having so many dumb children -- so the major influence of the Catholic’s campaign against birth control is that they trade away their smart Catholics and get dumb ones.”-- Elmer Pendell, Population on the Loose .

“I’m a liar, a hypocrite, I’m afraid of everything. I don’t ever tell the truth; I don’t have the courage. I don’t steal and kill, not because I don’t want to, but because I’m afraid. My god is fear, look inside me and that’s all you’ll find. Lucifer is inside me.”-- “Jesus,” in Martin Scorcese’s film “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

The Writer’s Bias Against Christianity.

No Limits At All.

The only reason that writers have been mocking and degrading Christianity longer that television producers is that the written word has been in existence for a much longer period of time. With writers, as with television, there are protected religious groups and then, in a separate unprotected category, there is Christianity.

The only difference is that there is no Federal Communications Commission looking over the shoulders of writers; their attacks on Christianity can be overt and offensive in the extreme, and any objection whatever can be labeled an assault on free speech, artistic expression, and the First Amendment. A very few of the many current examples are described in the following paragraphs.

Certainly Not the Bible.

The entire book Not the Bible , written by Sean Kelly and Tony Hendra and published by Random House, is a parody of Scripture, and mocks its principles in the most hideous manner imaginable. One typical passage is a song entitled “The Book of Psongs,” set to the lyrics of “Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus,” and reads as follows;

“THE BOOK OF PSONGS”

“O bloody bloody Jesus, I love your blood so red,

I love the bloody corpuscles streaming from your head;

O bloody bloody Jesus, I love thy crimson tide,

I love the bloody Roman spear that got stuck in your side;

O rare and bloody Jesus, I love thy hands that bled,

I love the nails that pierced them O Jesus red and dead;

I’d love to drink the blood O Lord that drips from off thy feet,

and wash my hands and brush my teeth -- O Lord would that be sweet!

O bloody bloody Jesus, I love thy blood so red;

I loved you when you were alive, but I love you better dead!”

Reference. “Random House Likes Jesus Dead.” National Federation for Decency Journal , May 1984, page 3.

Book of the Damned.

One particularly extreme example of public and overt Christian-bashing is a bizarre compendium of zombie-horror stories entitled Book of the Dead and edited by John Skipp and Craig Spector in 1988. This book, and others just like it, are instructive merely because their extreme anti-Christian (and pornographic) language can be found in any bookstore and in any supermarket book section.

In the Book of the Dead , Joe Lansdale’s “On the Far Side of the Cadillac Desert With Dead Folks” features a Catholic nun and monk who oversee a tawdry ‘city of the dead’ in a desert. The main attraction of this city is a five-story high statue of Jesus, equipped with a ten-foot long erect and spotlighted penis.

The grossly obese monk is described as having body odor like “stale sweat, cheesy balls and an unwiped asshole,” and has injected his nose with a virus, causing it to rot. Supposedly this act is a penance for his sins. The nun is dressed in a very abbreviated habit that would be more appropriate garb for a prostitute. The monk and the nun kidnap two live drifters, Wayne and Calhoun, and a breathtakingly vile conversation commences;

““What order are you?” Wayne asked. “Jesus Loved Mary,” the nun said. “His mama?” Wayne said. “Mary Magdalene. We think he fucked her. They were lovers. There’s evidence in the scriptures. She was a harlot and we have modeled ourselves on her. She gave up that life and became a harlot for Jesus.”

“Hate to break it to you, sister,” Calhoun said, “but that do-gooder Jesus is as dead as a post ...” “Thanks for the news,” the nun said. “But we don’t fuck him in person. We fuck him in spirit. We let the spirit enter into men so they may take us in the fashion Jesus took Mary.” “No shit?”

“No shit.”

“... why don’t you shuck them drawers, honey, throw back in that seat there and let ole Calhoun give you a big load of Jesus ... I can get religion at a moment’s notice. I dearly love to fuck. I’ve fucked everything I could get my hands on but a parakeet, and I’d have fucked that little bitch if I could have found the hole.”“

Believe it or not, the more offensive portions of the above conversation have been omitted!

This book included several other stories about priests and ministers gathering up zombies solely for the purpose of abusing and exploiting them. This book was available on any supermarket bookshelf. It is not at all atypical of the type of Christophobic attitude prevalent among American novelists.

The Cardinal’s Breeding Program.

The only thing more offensive (and more effective propaganda) than outright slander is a set of lies designed to prop up an otherwise untenable ‘pseudo-scientific’ viewpoint.

The following paragraph is typical of the material written by Elmer Pendell in his trashy Population on the Loose . Did the literary critics object? Of course not! With a collective yawn, they turned to more important matters. “The Catholics are promulgating a breeding program to gain political control in the United States. In the poorer countries, they favor war as a method of keeping population and resources in balance. In these poor countries, the denser population is denser because the dumber Catholics and dumber others are having so many dumb children -- so the major influence of the Catholic’s campaign against birth control is that they trade away their smart Catholics and get dumb ones.”

Imagine the incredible uproar that would ensue if this paragraph substituted the word “Jew” or the word “Black” for the word “Catholic.” Every literary group in the country would have a collective violent seizure of self-righteousness. They would clamor that the author be ostracized permanently from their organizations and from society, and the book would be permanently banned.

For more examples of such anti-natalist, anti-Catholic bigotry, see Chapter 131, “Overpopulation.”

Satanic Silliness.

In late 1988, British author Salman Rushdie, a ‘fallen-away’ Moslem, published a book entitled The Satanic Verses , which degraded and defamed the chief tenets of Islam, the world’s largest religion. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared this a grave insult, and ordered the death penalty for Rushdie. In the United States, writer’s groups and free speech advocates condemned the Ayatollah and made the comical and obligatory ‘solidarity’ statement, “we are all Salman Rushdie.”

These writer’s groups also condemned as “cowardly” those bookstores that received bomb threats and subsequently pulled copies of The Satanic Verses from their shelves. These intellectual giants, oddly enough, didn’t think that it was “cowardly” for Rushdie to gibber about free speech rights and disappear into hiding, but they expected minimum-wage book clerks to risk their lives to insure that Rushdie made his millions.

Singer Cat Stevens, who professes Islam, publicly supported the death penalty for Rushdie. Several radio stations, conveniently forgetting about Stevens’ free speech rights, immediately announced that they would no longer play his songs.

Left-Wing Book Burning.

Neoliberal hypocrites love to snivel piteously about “conservative book-burning fanatics.” However, when it comes to left-wing book-burning fanatics, they seem to be suddenly struck with blindness.

Conservatives are intimately familiar with the Neoliberal caricature of the book-burning Baptist censor. This image is bandied about constantly by groups like People for the ‘American’ Way and many others who themselves commit censorship on a vast scale.

But who really burns the books in this country?

The National Endowment for the “Arts” (NEA) recently allocated $20,000 to the group Artpark, which in turn bestowed a subgrant to Survival Research Laboratories (SRL) for the purpose of conducting a Lewiston, New York show entitled the “Bible Burn.”

SRL posters distributed to art galleries all over the country read; “SRL will create large, sexually explicit props covered with a generous layer of requisitioned [stolen] Bibles. After employing these props in a wide variety of unholy rituals, SRL machines will proceed to burn them to ashes. Bibles can always be obtained for free [stolen] from hotels, churches, and your parents’ house. Be advised that in certain circumstances, theft is a moral obligation.”[3]

Strangely, there were no complaints from the People for the American Way about censorship or book-burning when they were informed about this event!

Why not?

Because, of course, the Bible is not “Politically Correct.”

It would be interesting to ask SRL planners what they would think about conservatives looting libraries of left-wing books they did not like and then burning them in the streets.

After this hypocrisy had been pointed out by local activists, Lewiston Arts Festival official David Midland told reporters that the SRL show had been canceled because “We do not condone the burning of the Bible or, in fact, any book.”

Anti-Christian Bias of the Motion Picture Industry.

“I’ve always known that Catholicism is a completely sexist, repressed, sin-and punishment-based religion.”-- Trash queen Madonna.[4]

Bing, Where Are You?

It is difficult to believe that the same Hollywood that brought us Bing Crosby and “The Bells of St. Mary” has executed such a complete turnaround in its attitude. Hollywood, which one time treated Christians with the same respect it did other people, has now become virulently anti-Christian, with a particular focus on attacking the Catholic Church.

There can be only one reason for this: Hollywood is now helping to destroy the Church by persuading the masses of moviegoers that Christianity really is a dinosaur, fit only for ridicule.

Some examples of Hollywood’s hate of Christianity are described in the following paragraphs.

Autobiographical Idiocy.

Martin Scorcese’s ballyhooed film failure “The Last Temptation of Christ” portrayed Jesus as a weak, waffling sinner who leans on Judas for strength.

Jesus is portrayed as a sado-masochist, a collaborator/quisling, a voyeur, a bigamist, and an indecisive wimp. One of his conversations with Judas (significantly the hero of the film) goes as follows;

Judas: “Where’s your pride?”

Jesus: “I don’t have any pride. I disobey the Commandments.”

Judas: “And who will pay for your sins?”

Jesus: “With my life. I don’t have anything else. I don’t know. I’m struggling.”

After he retreats into the desert, “Jesus” says: “I’m a liar, a hypocrite, I’m afraid of everything. I don’t ever tell the truth; I don’t have the courage. I don’t steal and kill, not because I don’t want to, but because I’m afraid. My god is fear, look inside me and that’s all you’ll find. Lucifer is inside me.”

It is fascinating indeed that Nikos Kanzantzakis is an excommunicated Greek Orthodox; scriptwriter Paul Schrader is an ex-Calvinist, and Martin Scorcese is a failed seminarian and ex-Catholic. Apostasy is what binds them together.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that Judas -- not Jesus -- is the hero of the film, and the only other reasonable person in the film is Pilate, played convincingly by David Bowie. This film is therefore obviously an autobiography , not a biography . It is one of the best examples of transference (the attribution of one’s own undesirable characteristics to someone else) that Hollywood has ever produced.

By the way, MCA, the film company which produced and distributed this film, distributes a matchbook-sized package to guests that includes a condom and states in bold letters on the cover, “MCA JAZZ: the best fucking jazz there is!”[5]

Other Examples.

Hollywood’s Unholy Duty.

Some elements of Hollywood are perfectly willing to sacrifice millions of dollars to get their anti-Christian propaganda distributed. To them, it’s not the loss of money that counts; they are simply doing what they believe is their anti-theistic duty.

“King David” was one of the most spectacular flops of all time: it cost $28 million and grossed only $3 million. “The Last Temptation of Christ” lost more than $10 million. The propaganda screed “The Handmaid’s Tale” recouped only half of its $13 million cost.[6]

It’s not as if Hollywood doesn’t know what will happen when they ridicule religion. The record has shown that anti-religious films consistently lose tens of millions of dollars, while those motion pictures that treat God and those who believe in Him in a respectful manner will make millions. Examples are “Chariots of Fire,” “Tender Mercies,” “The Trip to Bountiful,” “Witness,” and “A Cry in the Dark,” which between them made their producers more than $50 million in profits.

But the Hollywood film-makers see these lost millions as an investment, and a very good investment indeed from their strange point of view. Each anti-religious film that they crank out not only causes thousands of marginal Christians to leave the Church, but causes the few remaining true Christians terrible heartache.

Maybe Hollywood is taking vengeance ahead of time for the eternal fate that its leaders will inevitably suffer.

The Anti-Theistic Films.

Each anti-theistic film issued from the Hollywood sewer employs images for maximum propagandistic effect. Each film is unique in some of the aspects of its approach, as demonstrated below;[6]

· “Poltergeist II” (1987) features a hymn-singing preacher, Henry Kane, who leads a psychotic band of demonic Bible-beaters who are trying to drag a nice, progressive suburban family down to Hell. The only person who can possibly save them from these awful “Christians” is a heroic Native American medicine man who uses his pagan religion to defeat and humiliate Kane and his “Christians.”

· “Monsignor” (1982) stars Christopher Reeve as a priest who aggressively seduces idealistic young nuns and deals underhandedly with both the Mafia and the CIA.

· “Agnes of God” (1986) is a young nun who fornicates, gets pregnant, and then, after the baby’s birth, kills it and attempts to flush it down a toilet.

· “Light of Day” (1987) stars a pompous, Scripture-spouting hypocrite of a preacher who gets the hero’s teenaged sister pregnant and then dumps her.

· Hollywood went for a “two-fer” with their 1988 release “The Handmaid’s Tale,” as they simultaneously ridiculed religion and promoted abortion. This propaganda film stars Robert Duvall, and describes the horrors of a totalitarian Fundamentalist regime called Gilead, where fertile women are forced into “mandatory motherhood” for the good of the State. Pro-abortionists were absolutely delighted with this film and used it as a fundraiser. Senator Alan Cranston and Congresscreature Patricia Schroeder (D-olt), two of Congress’ most fanatical pro-aborts, used it as a fundraiser. So did Planned Parenthood. Predictably, pornographers, including editors from Playboy Magazine, gave it rave reviews.

· “King David” starring Richard Gere, has the Jewish king abandoning his religion and rejecting God at the end of his life.

· A 1984 film by Pedro Almodovar entitled “Dark Habits” tells the story of “The Humble Redeemers,” whose members support themselves by writing sleazy romance novels. The nuns include Sister Manure, Sister Snake, and Sister Alley Rat.

Watch Out! Dangerous Stuff Here ...

Dr. Billy Graham’s 1984 film entitled “The Prodigal” was rated PG by the Motion Picture Association of America solely because of its references to Christianity. In fact, the MPA noted at the bottom of its review that “Pre-teenage children should not be exposed to Christianity without their parent’s consent.”[7]

This statement brought tears of laughter to the eyes of many Christian activists due to its limitless hypocrisy: The motion picture industry exposes our children to sodomy, infidelity, obscenity, Communism, atheism, and every other imaginable perversion and evil without a second thought, but Christianity is considered dangerous enough to merit a special review classification!

Anti-Christian Bias of the Arts.

“Art is the signature of man.”-- G.K. Chesterton.

Introduction.

Real artists have always been with us, and always will be with us. For the most part, they labor anonymously in efforts to improve their craft and create objects of beauty which seem to originate far beyond the capabilities of the human heart and hand.

And then there are the no-talent sham artists. These ‘quacks’ have no talent, and they know it. They also know that the only possible way anyone will ever notice them is if they make something that will anger and insult people. These people are a disgrace to the profession, and real artists despise them for it.

There is a simple way to discern the difference between an artist of true talent and a hacker with no talent at all. An average person could never duplicate the magnificent work of the true artist. However, anyone off the street could easily duplicate the ‘works’ of the hacks.

Following are a few examples of “art” (to stretch the term to its limit) that have made the rounds recently. Their only claim to fame is their offensiveness.

Sorrano and His ‘Piss Christ.’

Andres Sorrano, a little-known “artist,” simply filled a vat with his own urine and submerged a photograph of a Crucifix in it. He imaginatively entitled this masterpiece “Piss Christ.” For this magnificent effort, he received a $15,000 award from the National Endowment of the Arts.

Urine tax dollars at work.

His “work” was selected for the Awards in the Visual Arts program of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art of Winston-Salem, North Carolina for display and tour.[8] This program, perhaps not coincidentally, is funded by The Rockefeller Foundation, which also heavily funds worldwide population control. This is an excellent example of how the population control cartel undermines the authority of those organizations (in this case, the Christian Church) who oppose their worldwide program of genocide.

Outside of Satanism, no more direct attack on the Person of God has ever been launched, and yet ‘Good Christians’ squabbled over Sorrano’s “rights of expression.” Even Jesus physically attacked the moneychangers who desecrated only His Father’s house -- not his Person.

Sorrano’s “art” was displayed at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Carnegie-Mellon University Art Gallery in Pittsburgh, the Virginia Museum of Fine Art in Richmond, and the Stux Gallery in New York.

Sorrano’s other works include “Piss God” and “Piss Pope.” When asked what he would “work” with next, Sorrano replied “semen.”

He was as good as his word. The following year, he displayed a series of photographs entitled “Ejaculate Trajectory.” These consisted of photos of his own semen jetting across a black background in abstract patterns.

The National Endowment for the Arts had previously awarded Sorrano another $15,000 of tax money in 1985 for “creating artworks composed from human body parts and decapitated heads of animals exhibited in glass vats.”[9]

It would be interesting to find out if Sorrano had the courage to ‘create’ a “Piss Martin Luther King,” a “Piss Bella Abzug,” or (we can hope, can’t we?) a “Piss Jill Ireland.” It would also be fascinating to see how far the artistic ‘community’ would go to defend Sorrano’s freedom of expression then .

Mapplethorpe’s Images.

Accompanying Sorrano’s “work” on tour was Robert Mapplethorpe’s exhibit of explicit homosexual perversions. One of his photographs depicted two naked men urinating into each other’s mouths. His photographic self-portrait depicted a bullwhip protruding from his own anus. Mapplethorpe achieved “gay martyrdom” by dying of AIDS in early 1989.[10]

The public complained bitterly that their hard-earned tax dollars were being wasted on this stupidity, and spurred 143 United States senators and congressmen to demand an end to public sponsorship of such “morally reprehensible trash.”

Predictably, defenders of this garbage-as-art used the tried and true First Amendment defense: “I think it’s unfortunate and dismaying that some elements in American society have prevailed upon Congress to consider interfering with artistic expression,” whined Howard Fox, curator of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which hosted the exhibition(ism).[11]

The Future of Art In This Society.

Frederick Hart, in the Fall 1989 issue of Arts Quarterly , stated prophetically that “The public has been so bullied intellectually by the proponents of contemporary art that it has wearily resigned itself to just about any idiocy that is placed before it ... But the common man has his limits, and they are reached when some of these things emerge from the sanctuary of the padded cells of galleries and museums and are put in public places, where the public is forced to live with them and pay for them ... The current philosophy and practice of art thrives on a belief system of deliberate contempt for the public ... They are after more than our money ... they are ridiculing traditional values, and trying to destroy them, and casting themselves in the role of victims once again when we object.”

In his monumental work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , Edward Gibbon listed five unmistakable marks of Rome just before its destruction. These marks are unchanging and eternal danger signals to the population of any civilization in its final years, analogous to the eight cancer danger signs. One of Gibbon’s definitive danger signs is “...freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality, and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity.”

Conclusion.

Is it any wonder that pro-aborts and their soulmates, the sodomites, can so easily and contemptuously dismiss all Christians as “hypocrites?” The anti-life people, after all, are merely trying to justify a lifestyle that they instinctively know is sinful and wrong. The easiest way to do this is to insist that everyone enjoys wallowing in sin and crime just like them.

Nobody has ever faulted the anti-lifers for being too intelligent. They subscribe to the quick and easy way out of everything, and live for the here and now. They are good examples of the “bumpersticker mentality,” and might be called a “herd of independent thinkers.”

As mindless media slaves, they enjoy a constant visual diet of murdering, hypocritical, womanizing sleazebag “Christians” on television, in the movies, and on radio -- and, since we know that pro-aborts in particular have a difficult time separating fact from fantasy, and look for any means to support their views, it is natural that they should subscribe to the Hollywood view while ignoring the reality.

==========================================

[1] Jewish syndicated columnist Don Feder, quoted in “Columnist Notes Hollywood’s Anti-Christian Bias.” American Family Association Journal , January 1989, page 18.

[2] L.A. Law star Corbin Bernsen and rock musician Frank Zappa, at a pro-abortion rally in Los Angeles in April of 1990. Quoted in Joseph Farah. “Hollywood’s New Blacklist: An Inside View of the Intolerance, Censorship, and Bigotry in Today’s Entertainment Industry.” New Dimensions Magazine, September 1990, pages 12 to 25.

[3] “So That’s Where Our Tax Money Goes!” The Phyllis Schlafly Report , January 1991. Also described in “S.F. Artists: ‘Steal Bibles and Burn ‘Em.’” Focus on the Family Citizen, November 19, 1990, page 8. Also see “Arts Festival Cancels Bible-Burning Show.” National Catholic Register , October 28, 1990, page 3.

[4] Trash queen Madonna, quoted in US Magazine, June 13, 1991, and in “Madonna Blasts Catholics.” American Family Association Journal , September 1991, page 3.

[5] “MCA ‘Matchbook’ Condom Shows Company’s ‘Morality.’” American Family Association Journal , January 1989, page 11.

[6] Michael Medved. “Does Hollywood Hate Religion?” Focus on the Family Citizen , April 1990, pages 12 to 14.

[7] “Moviemakers Think Christianity a Danger to Pre-Teens.” National Federation for Decency Journal , May 1984, page 3.

[8] USA Today , April 26, 1989, page D1.

[9] Patrick J. Buchanan. “The Lost War for America’s Culture?” The Wanderer , June 1, 1989, page 8.

[10] The Oregonian , July 28, 1989, page D1. Also see Joseph Sobran. “O Ye of Little Faith.” The Wanderer , July 6, 1989, page 5.

[11] National Catholic Register , July 9, 1989, page 1.

==========================================

CHAPTER 126. THE AMERICAN MEDIA: PRO-ABORTION, AND IT SHOWS

“[The Newspaper Guild] reaffirms a woman’s fundamental constitutional right to make private and confidential decisions regarding reproduction ... We oppose any re-examination of the Court’s decision at attempts to restrict these rights by the federal, state or local governments of the United States.”-- Pro-abortion resolution of the Newspaper Guild, adopted during its 1986 National Convention.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“You know who else I can’t stand, is them people that are anti- abortion. Fuck them, I hate them ... They’re horrible, they’re hideous people. They’re ugly, old, geeky, hideous men ... They just don’t want nobody to have an abortion ‘cause they want you to keep spitting out kids so they can fucking molest them.”-- Rosanne Barr.[2]

Pro-choice groups are tired of listening to anti-choicers snivel about unfair media bias. This is a ridiculous notion and a typical anti-choice red herring. Since the media are admittedly very liberal, they must therefore be open-minded and very even-handed in their approach to all subjects, even volatile ones. All of the branches of our media treat the abortion issue in a fair and impartial manner.

Introduction.

“The media has been our best friend in this fight. They claim objectivity, but I know they’re all pro-choice.”-- Susanne Millsaps, executive director of the Utah Chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).[3]

The proven extreme bias of the media powers-that-be is reflected in the standard violence- and sex-saturated programming dished out all day on network television. Although some news stations strive to be fair, the vast majority will interview pro-abortion spokespersons and accept their allegations without question. Any pro-life person who attempts to speak his or her piece is grilled mercilessly off-camera and is either made to look a “fanatic,” or is treated in a condescending manner, if he or she is lucky enough to get on camera.

The media concentrate the majority of their attention on a few clinic bombers, and deliberately paint the entire pro-life movement in terms of ‘violent, judgmental fanatics.’ Of course, they did not do this with the civil rights movement, even though it was fraught with incandescent rhetoric, bombings, and even deliberate murders. In the case of the civil rights movement, the press took great pains to carefully separate in their reporting the violent fringe from the main body of civil rights activists.

Even more aggravating to pro-lifers is their status as “media niggers;” their events simply are ignored by the press.

None of this is particularly surprising, in light of the fact that the media are almost uniformly pro-abortion. As described in Chapter 124, “Sources of Media Biases,” the officially suppressed Lichter-Rothman studies revealed the following fascinating information about the ‘movers and shakers’ of the media;

· Motion picture leaders are 95% pro-abortion.

· Television leaders are 97% pro-abortion.

· News media leaders are 90% pro-abortion.

The Primary Weapon: Media Censorship.

“The New Ms. Magazine will unfailingly treat a woman’s right to an abortion as sacrosanct. There will be no dissent on that in our pages.”-- Ms . Magazine Editor Robin Morgan, quoted in the March 5, 1990 Washington Post .

Introduction.

The greatest weapon that a communicator can use against his enemy is simple but effective censorship. Chapter 124, “Sources of Media Biases,” describes how media personnel overwhelmingly describe themselves as ‘liberal,’ and how they perceive that they have a social duty to change our society for the better -- in their view.

This can best be accomplished by giving lavish and sympathetic coverage to liberal causes and by simply ignoring or condemning conservative causes.

The following paragraphs describe just a few of the hundreds of examples of outright and indefensible censorship committed against the pro- life viewpoint by every branch of the communications media: The media news, television, theater, and particularly the ‘arts.’

“Sorry, Too Graphic ...”

When the Southern-California based pro-life group Circle of Concern attempted to purchase a 30-minute time slot to show the motion picture “Eclipse of Reason” in April of 1990, they were turned down flat by KTLA, KCAL, and KTTV in Los Angeles. The fourth station, KCOP, offered them a good time slot but, after viewing the film, station manager Rick Feldman (who admits he is a pro-abortionist) reneged on his agreement and changed his offer to a 12:30 AM slot for $25,000. Feldman alleged that the movie was “too graphic.”[4]

Yet the four stations had, in the last year, featured specials on the effects of the Hiroshima atom bomb on human beings; the slaughter of Kurds and Jews with graphic close-ups of scorched, gassed, and piled-up bodies; the slaughter of various animals in vivid bloody detail; and thousands of murders.

Champions for Life.

In 1990, the American Life League produced a video entitled “Champions for Life,” which featured professional athletes speaking out for the preborn. These stars included New York Giants tight end Mark Bavaro, who was instrumental in helping his football team win a tightly-contested game with the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV.

The reaction from the pro-abortion press was even more vehement than pro-lifers expected. Sports Illustrated went to the trouble of printing a special column to snivel about Bavaro’s stand.[5] Moreover, even though Bavaro had five pass receptions in the Super Bowl, including three in the drive for the winning touchdown, the magazine did not even mention his name in its 7-page article on the game!

Law professor Laurence Tribe wasn’t satisfied with Bavaro being reduced to the status of an invisible person. Tribe threatened legal action, asserting that “It is ethically dubious to use a film of fans who came to see a game, to support one side of a political issue.”[5] Strangely, Tribe and his half-blind cohorts saw no problem with a dozen female movie stars cavorting in the pro-abort’s 1989 March for Death in Washington, D.C.

Abortion is the absolute, unquestioned number one priority of the entertainment industry’s two most powerful lobbying organizations, the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee and the Hollywood Political Foundation. These sent to the March for Death a galaxy of ‘Bimbos for Choice,’ including Anne Archer, Polly Bergen, Ellen Burstyn, Glenn Close, Judy Collins, Mary Crosby, Jill Eikenberry, Shelly Fabares, Morgan Fairchild, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, Bonnie Franklin, Terri Garr, Whoopi Goldberg, Lee Grant, Jennifer Grey, Veronica Hamel, Valerie Harper, Amy Madigan, Melissa Manchester, Penny Marshall, Kelly McGillis, Donna Mills, Susan Sarandon, Cybill Shepherd, Marlo Thomas, and Daphne Zuniga.

Social Issues?

When contemporary Christian singer Kenny Marks released a video entitled “The Party’s Over,” which dealt with the more sobering aspects of teen pregnancy, the major music television networks, including MTV and Nickelodeon, refused to play it because, as their spokesmen alleged, “We’re not in the business of promoting social issues.”[6] This was despite the fact that Marks’ publicist demonstrated that the stations commonly show videos that deal with every other imaginable social issue, including drug use, apartheid, hunger, nuclear war, and crime.

“Unacceptable Proselytizing.”

WBBM-AM Chicago, a CBS-owned station, pulled a series of eight ‘inspirational’ Lenten talks by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in 1989, allegedly due to its policy of not broadcasting ‘proselytizing’ messages. According to the CBS Standards and Practices department, Bernardin’s message was “unacceptable.” Naturally, when asked exactly what this meant, the CBS media moguls refused to answer.

However, all mentions of prayer are apparently not entirely “unacceptable” or “offensive” to CBS: One of its press releases, touting a drama featuring a farm wife with an impotent husband, Jonathan, included the statement “The devoutly religious Jonathan, after fervent prayer, decides on a solution: Mary should become pregnant by his younger brother, Aaron!”[7]

As always, religion is OK on the networks -- just so long as it is cast in an unfavorable light.

It is interesting indeed that WBBM-AM gladly sold air time to Planned Parenthood so that it could advertise during the show “Muppet Babies.” The message of the PP ads was essentially: “Don’t trust your parents. If you have a problem of any kind, come to Planned Parenthood first! “[8]

By the way, Planned Parenthood tried to force Laurel Cablevision of Torrington, Connecticut, to give up plans to show of Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s film “The Silent Scream” by complaining that it would “spur violence against women’s health clinics.”[9]

Other Examples of Network Censorship.

There are literally hundreds of other obvious examples of network television bias against the pro-life position. The shows “20/20,” “West 57th Street,” “Donahue” (Phil is another “good Catholic” -- just ask him), and others have ridiculed every aspect of pro-life activism, from crisis pregnancy center work to rescue missions.

Interviewers are utterly merciless towards pro-life activists and fawn constantly over the pro-abortion guests. This seems to be a standard talk show format, with the exception of “The Morton Downey Show,” which itself probably did more harm than good to the pro-life movement in light of the moderator’s abrasive personality and methods.

Even Art Has Its Limits ...

During the intense debate surrounding Congressional funding of the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) in 1990, a parade of artists testified that there must never be any limits placed upon their freedom of expression. In other words, “art” that is shackled or limited in any way is really not art at all.

However, this is not true. Art, like every other form of expression, does have its limits -- and these limits are imposed with an iron fist, not by the legendary “Baptist Bluenose Brigade,” but by the Neoliberal artists themselves!

Take for example the use of fetal remains in artwork. Several artists during the time period 1985 to 1990 “created” earrings and other forms of adornment that featured small preborn babies encased in plastic or plexiglass. These “works” were widely praised by art critics.

In 1989, the “Degenerate Art Show” received a symbolic $500 NEA subgrant from “Artist Space.” This show featured Shawn Eichman’s “Alchemy Cabinet,” which displayed her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby next to the obligatory twisted wire coat hanger.[10] Eichman proudly described her ‘work’ as “Degenerate with a capital ‘D,’” and it was displayed at New York City’s Black and White in Color gallery at a show entitled “The Helms Degenerate Art Show/Protest.”

These displays were defended by the Art Establishment because all of the artists were pro-abortion and were transmitting a Neoliberal message.

But when a pro-life artist attempted to incorporate a preborn baby in her works, the door of plurality was immediately slammed in her face.

Mary Cate Carroll’s “American Liberty Upside Down” featured a large canvas of a family scene showing a man and woman sitting on a sofa and holding the dotted outline of a missing child. In the center of the child was a little door, which, when opened, revealed a second-trimester aborted preborn baby that Carroll had obtained from her college’s biology department.

In 1987, the Maryland Institute of Art’s Alumni Art Show asked Carroll to display five of her works. When presented with her proposals, the art department objected to “American Liberty Upside Down” and pulled it the day before the show opened. Professors from the art department also accused her of violating Federal law by transporting “human remains” across state lines to the Virginia show.

Carroll exposed the raw hypocrisy of the art department when she said that; “It’s semantics -- by not defining it [the baby], it makes it legal to murder it, but then, after it’s murdered, you redefine it, make it a human, and then it’s illegal to take it across state lines. Is this or is it not human?”[11]

The chairman of the art department hypocritically whined that “Had we allowed the flagrant and crass exploitation of this pathetic form, we would have flouted a moral as well as a legal obligation to treat it with dignity ...”[11]

This was a familiar line to pro-life activists. In other words, the art department had no objection to the act of abortion, just the display of the results.

Curious how Eichman and her buddies were never suspected of violating Federal law by transporting “human remains,” isn’t it? Perhaps the pro-aborts can simply define the dead preborn baby out of existence just as they can do with live preborns.

So, why are fetal remains allowed in some artwork but not in others? Why is it a crime to place a fetus in a jar in the middle of a canvas, while at the same time it is not a crime to display them in earrings?

The answer is always the same: It depends entirely upon your political views. “Alchemy Cabinet” transmitted a “pro-choice” message (remember the wire coathanger)? As such, it was Politically Correct. “American Liberty Upside Down” attempted to convey a pro-life message. This was not Politically Correct, and so it was suppressed.

National Council on the Arts member Jacob Neusner had previously proposed that the NEA adopt language prohibiting the funding of works of art that “utilize and part of an actual human embryo or fetus,” he was basically laughed at, and his proposal was defeated by the lopsided score of 10 to 2. Three council members privately said to him that “You can make beautiful earrings out of pieces of fetuses.”[10]

You can also make beautiful lampshades out of human skin.

The legend of unlimited free expression in art is just that -- a legend .

But There’s Still Hope ...

It may come as a shock to many pro-life activists that not all Hollywood celebrities are foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortion fanatics. Although most of them tend to keep their pro-life stand concealed because they fear a vicious backlash from their “open-minded” colleagues, the following “big-name” stars have publicly stated their respect for life: Mia Farrow, Woody Allen, Charlton Heston (who narrated Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s film “Eclipse of Reason”), Pat Boone, Mel Gibson, Dick Gregory, Kirk Cameron, Brooke Shields, Robert Blake, Patricia Neal, Jordan Knight (New Kids on the Block), Kate Mulgrew, Kevin Costner, Merle Olson, Tom Selleck, Jack Nicholson and (gasp!) Madonna.[12]

Of course, there are probably many more pro-life Hollywood stars, but they value their careers and therefore do not speak out for life.

Other Devices of Bias.

“I was asked to come to Chicago because Chicago is one of our 52 states, and the mandate we’ve now been given on the pro-choice abortion issue is that we have to pick up the pieces ... in 52 states across the nation, we have to bail water now out of the boat.”-- Raquel Welch, on CNN’s “Larry King Live” talk Show.[13]

Introduction.

The greatest weapon used by the media bosses against pro-lifers is simple but effective censorship. However, the biases of media writers can show up in an almost subliminal manner when they crank out articles dealing with abortion, as shown in the following examples. There is great disparity in reporting similar activities or events by pro- aborts and pro-lifers, depending upon which side will benefit from the coverage.

Perhaps the writers of such articles are not even aware of the organic and ingrained bias of their work, as some media spokesmen claim.

The following paragraphs describe eight of the devices used by pro-abortion media reporters for the purpose of subtly undermining the pro-life position in the public eye.

These devices are listed below.

DEVICES USED BY THE MEDIA TO UNDERMINE THE PRO-LIFE MESSAGE

(1) Selective coverage

(2) Ignoring inconvenient facts

(3) Beatification of pro-abortionists

(4) Bestowing of progressive ‘awards’

(5) Doomsday predictions

(6) Slanted labeling of events

(7) Unstated implications of violence

(8) Unilateral emphasis on personal views

Device #1: Selective Coverage.

Selective coverage is, of course, the pro-abortion media’s most potent weapon. When Catholic Archbishop Rembert Weakland roundly criticized the tactics of the pro-life movement, the virulently pro-abortion Milwaukee Journal published the entire 21-page, 8,000 word text of his message. When the American Archbishops all met to declare that there was “... no such thing as an authentic pro-choice Catholic” in November of 1989, the Journal lavished exactly two sentences of coverage on the event.

A lawsuit filed by a corporation or public entity against a special-interest group for the purpose of chilling freedom of expression is called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. Such lawsuits have been filed against environmental groups that have been engaged in purely Constitutional speech, and against individuals for acts as trivial as authoring a letter to a local newspaper that opposed a specific land development.

The major networks devoted at least three half-hour television news programs to SLAPPs in 1990. The commentators strenuously denounced the use of litigation against protected speech. Although the shows dealt with a variety of examples, not a single word was mentioned about the use of the RICO statutes against pro-lifers, a classic SLAPP if there ever was one.

When federal racketeering (RICO) statutes were being used against Wall Street white-collar criminals, New York Times and Los Angeles Times editorials strongly opposed the statutes themselves as “unconstitutional.” But these major newspapers were utterly silent on the use of RICO and police brutality against numerous nonviolent pro-life rescuers.

This is not surprising in light of the fact that the press admits that it is heavily pro-abortion. In other words, the networks oppose lawsuits brought for the purpose of suppressing free speech -- but only if it is free speech that they agree with .

Device #2: Ignore Inconvenient Facts.

The media are pro-abortion enough to be totally dishonest, even when reporting the results of abortion-related scientific studies. For example, numerous papers published lavish reports on a book written by American psychologist Henry P. David and several Czechoslovakian scientists.

This book, entitled Born Unwanted , supposedly demonstrated that women in Czechoslovakia who were denied abortions by review committees had children who had more educational, vocational, and personal problems than children who were brought up in homes with parents who “wanted them.”

But a similar study that produced precisely the opposite conclusion was completely ignored, though the study was performed much closer to home: In Canada. The 1984 study was published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association , and found very few ill effects among children of several thousand women who were denied abortions in Europe.[14]

Device #3: Beatification of Pro-Aborts.

The manner in which the media grovels at the feet of pro-abortionists is sometimes sickening enough to empty the strongest stomach.

One excellent example of this craven toadying was the December 1989 Time Magazine profile of former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton. The article was evenhandedly entitled “Nothing Less Than Perfect.” The writers described Wattleton as “imperturbable, smoothly articulate,” “imperially slim and sleekly dressed,” and “a stunning refutation of the cliche of the dowdy feminist.”

By vivid contrast, the same article described one of her primary opponents, rescuer Randall Terry, simply as “a former used car salesman.”

The New York Times, Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek Magazine have all characterized Terry in this manner, attempting to discredit him by capitalizing on the public’s image of used-car salesmen as sleazy, shifty-eyed cheats. It is quite obvious that these publications would never have dared mention Wattleton’s background if she was, say, a former drug addict or prostitute.

Device #4: Progressive ‘Awards.’

“Newsy” periodicals represent liberal causes as mainline and moderate by bestowing various awards and honors upon their activists. The tactic of “exclusionary labeling” is used concurrently to convince readers that Neoliberals or “progressives” are really “just plain folks” like you and me. By implication, the total lack of conservative representation in these awards tells readers that such people are “outside the mainstream” or “out of touch.”

For example, the Esquire Magazine “Register” consists of a listing of the people whom the publication’s editors believe best reflect the values of this country. In its December 1989 issue, the magazine listed as current and previous honorees “political activist” Faye Wattleton, Janet Benshoof of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, and Sarah Weddington, the lead pro-abortion attorney on the Roe v. Wade case.

Not a single pro-lifer appeared on the Esquire “register.” Furthermore, of the hundreds of names listed, only about two percent could remotely be identified as “conservative” in any way -- and then only when they were connected with social issues that most ‘progressives’ could agree with, such as environmentalism or work for the homeless.

This incredible degree of bias is not hard to believe if one attempts to imagine the probability of Joe Scheidler, Phyllis Schlafly, or Joan Andrews being favorably written up in Esquire Magazine.

Device #5: Doomsday Predictions.

Whenever pro-lifers achieve a victory, however small, many newspapers and television stations immediately try to throw a huge scare into the public by making dire predictions of impending doom and destruction. These predictions never have even the most tenuous connection with reality.

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Webster decision, many newspapers went ballistic. For example, the Boston Globe wrote that “a majority of states” would be expected to “ban abortion in all but extreme circumstances.” “No more than five states would retain the liberal guidelines” that existed before the decision was handed down, according to the paper. The U.S. News and World Report published a map showing that it expected only five states to retain “liberal” abortion laws.

The reality was far different, of course. Two years after the Webster decision, pro-lifers still had made very little progress in the state legislatures.

Many newspapers make such hysterical predictions that even those members of the public who are nominally ‘pro-choice’ shake their heads in despair. On April 9, 1989, Los Angeles Times reporter Marjorie Miller did a story on a Mexican woman who had been arrested and beaten by police for allegedly obtaining an illegal abortion. Miller then stated as fact that this is what American women could look forward to if Roe v. Wade were overturned.[15]

Device #6: Slanted Labeling.

The Associated Press, Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Times , and Time and Newsweek Magazines refer to those who oppose abortion “even in the cases of rape and incest.” However, we never see an article referring to those who support abortion “even in the last trimester and for sex selection.”

The written media commonly describes abortion-related events in a very biased manner. You will read of a “major setback for abortion rights,” never “a major victory for abortion opponents;” you will see “a stunning defeat for women’s rights,” not “a great victory for unborn children;” the articles will read “rights of the woman,” never “rights of the unborn;” and “harsh (or restrictive) laws,” not “laws protective of the unborn.”

The media often uses the word “baby” when writing a story about preborn children that has nothing to do with abortion -- say a new intrauterine surgical procedure -- but it invariably uses the words “fetus” or “embryo” when dealing with an abortion-related story.

This propensity towards labeling is pervasive even when applied to entire movements. A 1989 study by Washington’s Center for Media and Public Affairs showed that networks used the terms “pro-choice” or “abortion rights supporters” in every one of their thousands of references to pro-abortionists, but employed the label “pro-life” in only six percent of their references to abortion opponents. This study examined 118 social-issue programs aired from January 1 through August 31, 1989 by ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Pro-life individuals or groups are routinely labeled as “militant,” “strident,” “radical,” or “extremist.” Pro-abortionists are generally referred to as “mainline,” “centrist,” “moderate,” or “representative of the majority.”

Device #7: Implications of Violence.

When covering a peaceful and legal pro-life picket, the media almost always tacks on the comment “No arrests were made,” as if such arrests were commonplace. In a similar vein, it reports that “There was no violence” when covering peaceful rescue missions. The implication, of course, is that there often is violence at such activities.

This is the same as a ship’s First Officer writing in the log of his teetotaler Captain, “The Captain was not drunk today,” or a politician claiming of his peaceful opponent, “He did not beat his wife today.” Of course, the media never treat pro-abort pickets or civil disobedience in this manner. In fact, when there is widespread violence committed by pro-aborts, such as the burning of a Right to Life office, the event is utterly ignored by the media.

The news media also uses selective coverage to discredit pro-lifers at street events. When television news cameras cover rescue missions, they zoom in on police beating up or dragging away rescuers, thereby making the action-packed scenes look violent, even if rescuers offer no resistance. The cameras studiously ignore screaming, cursing, spitting pro-aborts assaulting pro-lifers.

Device #8: Weighted Importance of Views.

When pro-abortion politicians win a tight race, their stand on the issue is portrayed as contributing substantially to their victory. However, when an outspoken pro-life politician wins, the event is either downplayed, or abortion is painted as “irrelevant” to the contest.

Direct Media Participation in Pro-Abortion Events.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a bunch of Catholics making assholes of themselves again.”-- Reporter commenting on abortion clinic picket.[16]

Introduction.

One of the most glaring examples of Neoliberal doublethink is displayed by pro-abortion newspaper executives. For these people, it is a very serious matter indeed for a media employee to participate in pro-life activities -- even on his or her own free time! Such participation is deemed to fatally compromise the employee’s objectivity.

On the other hand, media employees at the same newspapers or television stations are allowed and even encouraged to participate in pro-abortion events, with no repercussions whatsoever.

The Newspaper Union is Pro-Abortion.

Bias pervades every level of the newspaper media. The Newspaper Guild, the nation’s newspaper employee’s union (consisting of 200 newspapers and 34,000 employees), adopted a resolution at their 1986 convention favoring unlimited abortion. It reads; “[The Newspaper Guild] reaffirms a woman’s fundamental constitutional right to make private and confidential decisions regarding reproduction. That right, supported in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision 13 years ago, holds that freedom of choice in abortion decisions is a matter of constitutional right, protected, secured, and guaranteed by the 4th and 14th Amendments. We oppose any re-examination of the court’s decision at attempts to restrict these rights by the federal, state or local governments of the United States.”[1]

Anna Padia, the Guild’s alleged “human rights coordinator,” defended this resolution by saying that “Reporters are professional enough to cover events without injecting personal opinion into their stories.”[1]

And, if you believe this, we have a lovely little bridge in downtown Manhattan for sale.

Cockeyed Thinking.

It’s funny how the newspapers consider themselves competent enough to participate in partisan events, while never allowing the same latitude for pro-life judges and legislators. When a judge or lawmaker participates in a pro-life event during their spare time, the newspapers rush to be the first to condemn them for “injecting personal opinion” into their jobs! Naturally, there is no problem if a judge or legislator speaks at a pro-abortion rally.

Of course, this tender solicitude only extends to pro-abortion newspaper personnel. If any reporter or journalist dares to participate in any pro-life activity on their own time, they are liable to be fired from their jobs.

The Diane Dew Story.

This happened to Diane Dew, a newsroom secretary, who was fired from her job at the Milwaukee Journal on July 21, 1989 for the high crime of participating in legal pro-life protests. Sig Gissler is the editor of the virulently pro-abortion Milwaukee Journal . He and his wife are both major contributors to Planned Parenthood, and have been designated “Patron Donors” (the highest possible classification) by the organization.

The editorial board gave Dew an ultimatum: Agree in writing to give up her Constitutionally-protected rights of free speech by promising to cease all of her pro-life activities (including writing any pro-life stories, picketing and counseling women), or give up her job. She refused to give up her rights, and Gissler fired her on July 21, 1989 because, as the paper alleged, her off-duty pro-life activities “compromised the paper’s objectivity.”[17]

Dick Williams, the paper’s vice-president in charge of employee relations, stated that Dew violated company policy because “ ... metro secretaries are part of the news-gathering process.”[17]

The 1989 ‘March for Death.’

The April 9, 1989 “March for Reproductive Choice” was trumpeted by the press for weeks before the actual event itself.

Nightline devoted an hour to extolling its virtues and showing how people could get involved. US,A Toady, The New York Times , and The Washington Post gave the event lavish pre-march coverage, including front-page stories.

The Post published five major stories on the event in the five days before it took place. On the day of the march, the paper’s magazine featured a 6,550 word story on it and included a map which showed the march route, all road closings, lost and found information, and how to sign up and get there by subway or bus.

The paper featured no less than five stories on the march the next day, including a front-page color picture and 7,000 words of total text, equivalent to three full pages of newspaper space.

As if this were not enough, in an acknowledged violation of self- imposed journalistic ethics, reporters for the New York Times and the Washington Post actually participated in the march in support of abortion ‘rights.’[18]

It is interesting to see how the Post handled a similar pro-life event by comparison. The paper ran a single short story on the next year’s April 1990 pro-life march, which had three times as many participants as the “March for Death.” The story, which had no accompanying pictures, maps, or promotion, was buried in the middle of the paper’s “Metro” (local) news section.[19]

When criticized for this glaring disparity in reporting, Post reporters whined that they were “just tired of covering demonstrations.” Talk about threadbare excuses! Would they simply ignore all types of news events that they were ‘tired’ of? Would they cease covering the 1990-1991 Gulf War after a couple of months because they were ‘tired’ of war coverage?

Some astute pro-lifers pointed out that the paper had lavishly covered the “Earth Day 1990” week-long demonstration just one week earlier, printing five stories and 11 photos over three days. The “Earth Day 1990” event was one-third the size of the pro-life march.

This case was not only a reflection of media bias, but a direct participation by the media in a pro-abortion event. In fact, the Hollywood Women’s Political Caucus showed up in farce for the “March for Death.” The pro-abort “stars” included Morgan Fairchild, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, Cybil Shepherd, Marlo Thomas, Donna Mills, Whoopie Goldberg, Veronica Hamel, Susan Sarandon, and dozens of other “Bimbos for Choice.”

Examples of Bias in the News Media.

“NBC News does not use the term “prolife,” which it regards as loaded, but if someone wanted to use ‘pro-choice,’ I’d say that was fine.”-- NBC News Editor Gilbert Millstein.[20]

Introduction.

The news media correctly sees itself as a powerful agent of social change, and therefore many of its members slant their news coverage of social issues in such a manner that it is almost unrecognizable to conservative activists. The great danger lies in the fact that many (or most) American viewers accept this coverage as unfiltered truth.

The major national news media have always pushed abortion, even before it was legal. Following are just a few examples of their pro-abortion activities.

Before Roe.

Newspaper bias before Roe v. Wade was even more pronounced than it is now, if such can be imagined. Newspaper editors encouraged readers to sign up on pro-abortion petitions and showed how they could obtain them for general circulation. Some newspapers presented artsy full-page ‘how-to’ abortion guides, including how to obtain legal abortions in neighboring states. Others gave Planned Parenthood abundant free advertising and repeatedly listed phone numbers for abortion referral services, even in states where prenatal killing was still illegal.[21]

But when pro-lifers attempted to gain a forum, they were ruthlessly shut out -- many veteran pro-lifers report that newspapers, almost universally, would not even accept their paid advertisements!

There’s Offensiveness, and Then There’s Offensiveness ...

The major television networks routinely display graphic scenes of human brutality in order to advance their agenda, such as;

· American ‘atrocities’ in Vietnam, including naked and roasted napalm victims;

· Soviet butchery in Afghanistan and gassed Kurds;

· Vivid footage of Nazi concentration camp victims;

· Hundreds of bodies bloating in the sun after the Jim Jones slaughter;

· Headless Chinese students stacked like cordwood after the Tianenmen Square massacre;

· Savagely battered wives and hideously abused children;

· Blood-splattered Panamanian opposition political candidates;

· Rotting elephant corpses and dead, oil-soaked seals,

but they will not even show pictures of live and healthy unborn babies! For example, both NBC and CBS refused to air an American Cancer Society public-service ad that depicted an unborn baby smoking, while the voice-over warned of the dangers of smoking while pregnant. Both networks labeled the spot “too graphic” and “potentially offensive.”[22]

Selling the Abortion Pill. Perhaps the best example of a recent widespread media pro-abortion campaign involves the abortion pill RU-486.

Marie Bass, former political director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, and Joanne Howes, former Planned Parenthood chief Washington lobbyist, assembled a five-fold media strategy to get the media to accept RU-486. They formed an explicitly pro-abortion lobbying and propaganda organization entitled the Reproductive Health Technology Project, whose purpose was to collect and distribute only favorable information on the abortion pill. They developed and disseminated a high-powered press kit that included sample charts and graphs and photos.

Reporter Charles Durran described the press packet: “Those press kits were impressive. In fact, they were a lazy reporter’s gold mine. Everything you needed for a really fantastic story -- or a series of stories -- was right there at your fingertips. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it.”

The five-part Bass & Howes strategy is outlined below.

FIVE-PART BASS & HOWES STRATEGY TO ENCOURAGE MEDIA ACCEPTANCE OF RU-486

(1) “Emphasize the possibility that the drug could very well end the whole public abortion struggle by making clinic protests obsolete.

(2) Emphasize the dearth of other contraceptive options available --particularly in comparison with what is available in other parts of the world.

(3) Emphasize the issues of privacy, ease, safety, choice, and freedom, rather than of abortion and politics.

(4) Emphasize the possibility of other medical benefits of the drug, such as treatment of breast cancer and Cushings Syndrome.

(5) Emphasize the threat to the freedom of ongoing medical research that a rejection of the drug might bring.”

Reference. This strategy is described in George Grant. “Media Bias and Abortion.” Legacy Magazine, October 1991, page 1. Newsletter of Legacy Communications, Post Office Box 680365, Franklin, Tennessee 37068.

This set of instructions to the media apparently worked very well. A survey of more than two hundred magazine and newspaper articles on RU-486 during the time period 1989-1990 showed that only 9 percent mentioned any of the pill’s numerous and serious complications or side effects; just 8 percent quoted any pro-life experts or sources; and a full 96 percent cast the pill in a very favorable light. Bass said that “Press coverage really is good, if you think about it -- sometimes I worry that it’s almost too good.”

The Bass & Howes strategy is not the only example of trickery used by pro-abortionists in their attempts to garner public support for the killing pill. The pro-aborts, acknowledging the power of doctored public opinion polls, are taking advantage of biased questioning in their headlong pursuit of favorable results that can then be quoted in subsequent propaganda campaigns. The National Abortion Federation, in a guide entitled “Successful Strategies: Managing the Media,” says that “When polls have been conducted on RU-486, the new French Pill, the results vary depending on how the question is asked. If RU-486 is referred to as an “abortion pill,” it has significantly less support than if it is called a new form of birth control. In many polls, the description can change support by as much as 15-20 points and determine if a majority of those polled are in favor of the pill.”[23]

For further information on how pro-abortionists conduct biased polls and then lie about the results, see Chapter 76 of Volume II, “Public Opinion Polls.”

Examples of Bias on Television.

“There would be a revolution in this country if people ever saw who supported abortion rights.”-- Cameraman’s excuse for not filming screaming, kicking, spitting pro-aborts in Buffalo during 1992 rescue missions.[24]

Introduction.

The television news may be bad, but it is a pro-life paradise compared to some of the scheduled TV programming produced by the major network studios over the past fifteen years.

The following paragraphs review just a few of the more blatant instances of outright pro-abortion propaganda foisted off on the public by the networks.

“Cagney and Lacey.”

The most outstanding recent example of this biased programming is a “Cagney and Lacey” episode entitled The Clinic. The network announced this as a “careful and unbiased” look at the pro/anti-life struggle.

The episode predictably opened with a person being killed in a clinic bombing (ignoring the fact that nobody has been killed -- or even injured -- in such an event). This act spurred long dissertations by Lacey as to why abortion must remain legal. Her partner Cagney remained ‘neutral’ on the issue all through the show. The only defense of the pro-life position came from an old stereotypical Catholic man who said, “I’m against it, because better men than me have thought it out.”

What an eloquent defense of the pro-life position!

Several indications of how ‘unbiased’ the show was occurred in the weeks just before and after its airing. Producer Barney Rosenzweig enlisted the help of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in his publicity campaign. Rosenzweig is so blindly pro-abortion that he worried about the ‘negative, anti-choice statement’ being made by the mere fact that Tyne Daley (Lacey) was pregnant in real life on a later “Cagney and Lacey” episode entitled “The Pregnant Detective.” In other words, he didn’t even want a pregnant woman on his show!

Talk about discrimination!

He got around his worries by having Lacey state that she was pro- choice and had previously endured a horrible illegal abortion.

After “The Clinic” aired, NARAL and other national pro-abortion groups applauded the show and showered ‘prestigious’ awards upon the actresses. According to the CBS Entertainment Division, 94 percent of the more than 3,600 calls they received on the show believed strongly that the show was blatantly biased in favor of the pro-abortion side.

The ACLU honored executive producer Barney Rosenzweig and writer Barbara Corday with their 1986 Bill of Rights award. Previous recipients of this award included Norman Lear and Ed Asner.[25]

“St. Elsewhere.”

Another popular television show, “St. Elsewhere,” is a series about a fictitious Catholic hospital New York City. The January 8 and 15, 1986 episodes of “St. Elsewhere” were carefully timed to air just before the annual Roe v. Wade anniversary. The producers did everything they possibly could to make pro-lifers look violent and irrational.

In the first episode, a pro-life couple enters the Boston Women’s Clinic (an abortion mill), called a doctor, and then soaked him with red paint and screamed “murderer!” at him. Another scene shows compassionate clinic personnel cleaning up the mess after vandalism (destroyed files and “murderer” painted on the walls in red paint), discussing all the while how they have been terrorized personally by pro-lifers and how terribly important it is that abortion must remain legal.

Later, a flood of injured people descend on the hospital after an enormous explosion at the abortion mill which kills numerous people. A doctor asks, “Who set off this bomb, pro-lifers?”

At the end of the first episode, the bomber creeps into St. Elsewhere, spouts a few lines Scripture to nobody in particular (just to let viewers know that he is a religious nut), and plants another bomb, which explodes. He turns himself in to one of the doctors and says “I was doing God’s work. Sometimes the born must die to save the unborn.”[26] This, of course, ignores the fact that nobody has ever been killed or injured in an abortion mill bombing.

Oh, well, sometimes the facts must be bent just a little so that social progress may be made.

The show moralized for its entire two hours on the necessity of abortion and the violent nature of anyone who is ‘anti-choice.’ Only one doctor in the entire hospital opposed abortion with weak and flawed arguments, but his real purpose was to be an inept foil ( a la “Cagney and Lacey”), so that all of the other main characters could lecture him at great length on the merits and necessity of “safe and legal” abortion.

On another show, a “St. Elsewhere” doctor provides a quickie abortion for another doctor’s daughter so she can concentrate on an important examination at school, ignoring the fact that abortions are banned at all Catholic hospitals in the United States. Naturally, the abortion comes as a great relief to her, and everything turns out just fine. Abortion is just what she needed, and anyone who showed the least uneasiness about her decision is derided mercilessly.

“Babies Having Babies.”

This 1986 NBC production consists primarily of four pregnant girls discussing with each other their reasons to abort or not to abort. The girls are totally stereotyped virtual caricatures. The two who decide to abort are the kind of person that girls can identify with: (1) a bright, ambitious, college-bound “tennis anyone?” type and (2) a punk-rocker with a tough exterior but the inevitable heart of gold. The two girls who decide to keep their babies are (1) an ignorant, bumbling 14-year old Black girl who didn’t kill her child because “I can always go on welfare,” and (2) an appallingly ugly Irish Catholic girl who doesn’t really like boys but who slept with one just to be noticed.

All through the show, the following ideas are verbalized and reinforced;

(1) sex is fun;

(2) abortion must always be an individual’s free choice;

(3) abortion is moral and ethical;

(4) abortion is no big deal; and

(5) if you don’t abort, “the kid” will ruin your life.

Naturally, the media moguls did not see the irony in the title of their show “Babies Having Babies,” although the concept that they were pushing was essentially “babies killing babies.”

Examples of Bias By Cartoonists.

Cartoonists in general, and especially political cartoonists, are unrestrained by even the minimal limits imposed upon others who influence the public through the media.

Take for example Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury,” which relentlessly uses the tools of distortion and ridicule to deride conservative positions and public figures. One week-long series of comic strips, deleted by many newspapers across the country, makes fun of Dr. Nathanson’s movie “The Silent Scream.”

“Doonesbury,” of course, is not the only offender. Bloom County’s penguin “Opus” proclaims for all the world to see: “Reagan Sucks!” in a summer 1988 strip. Imagine any cartoonist daring to say “Jesse Jackson Sucks!” or, better yet, “Molly Yard Sucks!”

Even the generally innocuous (and crushingly trivial) “Cathy,” produced by Cathy Guisewite, carried on during the entire week just before the 1988 Presidential elections about how the United States desperately needed Michael Dukakis, how the Republicans have destroyed the economy, and the fact that the next president will appoint “... at least three Supreme Court justices whose positions on women’s issues (read: abortion) could shape the future of our children for another 30 years.”

Examples of Bias By Syndicated Columnists.

Another source of great influence on the American public is syndicated columnists such as Ann Landers, “Dear Abby,” Ellen Goodman, and Coretta Scott King. All of these columnists, and many others, relentlessly push the whole range of anti-life viewpoints: Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, living wills, and so on. Anyone who dares to write a conservative letter to Ann Landers or Dear Abby, of course, is mercilessly pilloried as a “judgmental, close-minded lout.” The twins routinely ignore the facts and ridicule the very existence of third-trimester abortions, post-abortion syndrome, and fetal experimentation. In fact, they ignore the existence of the opposing view entirely.

For example, on October 1, 1991, a letter signed “Confused in St. Paul” and asking for church positions on abortion appeared in Dear Abby’s column in hundreds of newspapers nationwide. In response, Abby listed quotes supporting abortion from 11 churches and a wishy-washy quote from a single neutral church. No mention whatever was made of the position of any of the more than 120 pro-life churches, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The reply ended with the address and phone number of the ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights, but no contact for any of the more than 30 pro-life religious organizations. It is obvious that “Confused in St. Paul” and anyone else who wanted to know the facts would not be confused after contacting RCAR -- they would think that every church denomination was pro-abortion!

==========================================

“We report news, not truth. There is no such thing as objectivity. Any reporter who tells you he’s objective is lying to you.”-- Linda Ellerbee.[27]

[1] Todd Ackerman. “Newspaper Union Support of Abortion Spells Trouble.” National Catholic Register, September 10, 1989, page 1.

[2] Rosanne Barr, quoted in TV, Etc. , October 6, 1992.

[3] Susanne Millsaps, executive director of Utah NARAL, quoted in the Washington Times , March 13, 1991. Also quoted in Voices for the Unborn (Feasterville, Pennsylvania), October 1991, page 4.

[4] Joseph Farah, Editor of the New York City Tribune . “Pro-Life Groups Hit Opposition in Efforts to Buy Television Time.” American Family Association Journal , April 1990.

[5] The Mark Bavaro incident is described in an American Life League fundraising letter dated March 1991.

[6] “MTV Will Not Air Christian Singer’s Video.” American Family Association Journal , January 1989, page 7.

[7] “CBS Censors Cardinal Bernardin, Calls Religious Content Offensive.” American Family Association Journal , May 1989, page 14.

[8] Catholic Twin Circle , March 26, 1989, page 14.

[9] As described in “RTL and Cable TV.” National Right to Life News , September 5, 1985, page 6.

[10] “Some Praise ‘Fetus Earrings:’ NEA Council Defeats Commonsense Reforms Inside Washington.” Action News [Pro-Life Action League, Chicago], December 1990/January 1991, page 15.

[11] “American Liberty Upside Down -- Aborted Fetus As Art is Censored.” ALL About Issues , February 1984, pages 28 and 29.

[12] Feminists for Life of America. Sisterlife , Summer 1990.

[13] Raquel Welch, on CNN’s “Larry King Live” talk show. Quoted in the National Review , March 5, 1990, page 20.

[14] As described in Richard Doerflinger. “Media Seek Out Data Supporting Abortion.” Catholic Sentinel [Portland, Oregon], November 3, 1989, page 5.

[15] As described in Glenn Ellen Duncan. “Objectivity? On This Issue, Forget It!” National Catholic Register , May 14, 1989, page 5.

[16] Comments made by a reporter outside the Henry Morgentaler abortion clinic in Toronto, Canada. Quoted in Michael W. Cuneo. Catholics Against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in Toronto, 1969-1985 . University of Toronto Press, 1989, page 65.

[17] Todd Ackerman. “Prolife Secretary, Canned By Milwaukee Daily, to Sue.” National Catholic Register , September 17, 1989, page 1. Also see Cynthia McKnight. “ Milwaukee Journal Editor’s Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy.” National Right to Life News , November 2, 1989, page 5.

[18] “Pro-Abortion Journalists.” News in Review, Catholic Twin Circle , April 30, 1989, page 19.

[19] Joseph Sobran. “The Post’s Kind of People.” The Wanderer , April 20, 1989, page 5. [20] NBC News Editor Gilbert Millstein. Quoted in Burke Balch. “The Enormous Power of Language.” National Right to Life News , December 22, 1980, page 5.

[21] Marvin Olasky. “How the Press Short-Circuited the Abortion Debate.” American Family Association Journal , January 1989, page 13.

[22] “Networks Censor Out Pro-Life Ad.” National Federation for Decency Journal , April 1985, page 11.

[23] National Abortion Federation. Abortion: Moral Choice and Medical Imperative . “Abortion Practice Advancement, Sixteenth Annual Meeting Workbook, April 13-14, 1992, San Diego, California.” Page 133, “Successful Strategies: Managing the Media.”

[24] Paul Likoudis. “Buffalo Rescue Overcomes Propaganda Campaign and Awakens Christians.” The Wanderer , May 14, 1992, pages 1 and 9.

[25] “ACLU Honors Pro-Abortion Television Producer.” National Federation for Decency Journal , February 1987, page 16.

[26] “NBC Series Downs Pro-Lifers, Pushes Abortion.” National Federation for Decency Journal , February 1986, page 10.

[27] Linda Ellerbee and Geraldo Rivera, quoted in George Grant. “Media Bias and Abortion.” Legacy Magazine, October 1991, page 1. Newsletter of Legacy Communications, Post Office Box 680365, Franklin, Tennessee 37068.

==========================================

CHAPTER 127. THE MEDIA’S PRO-SODOMITE BIAS

“Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women’s lib or any nationalist or racist group. It’s the gays. If you don’t have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don’t go on the air.”-- Television producer James Komack.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The news media and the entertainment media have been beating up on lesbians and gays for long enough. It is about time the leaders of the media jettisoned their narrow homophobic prejudices and stereotypes and caught up with the real world by portraying us just as we really are -- like everyone else, except for our choices of sexual partners.

Introduction.

Bad Guys But No Bad Gays.

Individual members of virtually every social, ethnic, financial or geographic group of any imaginable description are at least occasionally identified on television as “bad guys.” This is not necessarily an evil trend, since “bad guys” do, indeed, come from every group in society. We have Jewish bad guys, Catholic bad guys, black, red, yellow, white, even extraterrestrial bad guys -- but there is one group that is automatically and completely exempted from any negative connotation whatever in the media, even on a purely individual basis.

You will never see a homosexual “bad guy” in the media.

Why is this?

A Heavy Hand.

This is because homosexuals have a very heavy influence in the media, and they know that it is absolutely vital to their cause to convince the public that their condition is genetic and not acquired. It is also absolutely essential to ensure that no homosexual is ever depicted as having any character flaw or undesirable characteristic, so that the public will be lulled into believing, perhaps subliminally, that all homosexuals are sweet-natured, basically harmless folks who should be fully integrated into society without delay. This type of media manipulation is fully recognized by the sodomites as an essential means to convincing the American public that sodomy is “just another lifestyle.”

Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill authored a series of strategy articles entitled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” This series appeared in the October and November 1987 issues of Guide Magazine. The following quotes outline the homosexual strategy for the media;

“The first order of business is the desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights ... You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won ... A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.

“In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere!

“The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed ... So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.”

“Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no [homosexual] campaign ... For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure” [emphasis added].

No Cure.

As an example of such domination, the powerful homosexual lobby will never permit the release of any Hollywood or television movie or show that features any homosexual being “cured” or turning away from his perverted deathstyle. In a 1987 series of TV Guide articles, a large group of television executives agreed that it would be literally impossible to produce a show with this theme.[2]

For information on how the homosexuals manipulate the media to achieve their own ends, see Chapter 118, “Homosexual Tactics.”

The Homosexual Reality -- A Big No-No.

Crushing Dissent.

Homosexuals will ruthlessly crush any free expression that is not in lockstep with their peculiar worldview, particularly if that expression is intended to be shared with others.

For example, a summer 1988 episode of NBC’s “Midnight Caller” originally portrayed a homosexual in less than glowing terms, so a handful of sodomites quickly organized and loudly demonstrated outside the set. The script was immediately changed, and the program executives bowed and scraped and apologized profusely.[3]

Anita Bryant had been the Orange Bowl Parade commentator for NBC for nine years, until she “came out of the closet” to fight the radical homosexual agenda. NBC immediately dumped her and hired Rita Moreno, who had always been sympathetic towards homosexuals, and had starred in the first widely-distributed major movie about homosexuality, The Ritz. Time Magazine, in its August 30, 1976 issue, flatly labeled it “a gay movie.”

Moving On to Violence.

Promiscuous sodomite activists are the most violent and irrational group of people on earth, as described in Chapter 118, “Homosexual Tactics.”

Homosexuals by no means restrict themselves to loud and obscene protests when they are displeased with someone who has spoken out against them. They have shown their displeasure in hundreds of instances by physically destroying property and assaulting those who disagree with them.

The Sacramento Union learned this lesson after it published several editorials against pro-abortion and pro-homosexual initiatives during the summer of 1990. Shortly thereafter, vandals destroyed more than a hundred of the paper’s vending machines, causing more than $45,000 of damage. The wrecked machines were plastered with ACT-UP stickers. ACT-UP is the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, a sodomite activist group which physically and violently attacks those who dare to oppose its perverted agenda in any way.[4]

Even churches are not safe from the new legions of sodomite Brownshirts. In December of 1989, four Los Angeles area Catholic churches were defaced and vandalized by homosexual activists. Red paint was splashed everywhere and the words “Mahony murderer “ were spraypainted on the church walls. ACT-UP posters were plastered on many windows.

Roger Mahony was the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

The response by the Los Angeles Times ? The paper not only did not condemn the attacks, but publicized future activities of the Los Angeles chapter of ACT-UP with the dates, places, and names of Catholic parishes to be targeted by the vandals![5]

Even Hollywood is Fed Up.

Even some of Hollywood’s finest are becoming fed up with this glaring double standard and Nazi-like censorship. In addition to James Komack’s statement above, screenwriter Earnest Kinov complained in 1985 that “You can handle homosexuality -- as long as you handle it in a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby.”[6]

In June of 1990, none other than The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality, race, or gender, but only if you hold “the approved point of view.”[7]

This restrictive policy is precisely the one held by sodomite groups. You can say whatever you want to about “Gay Rights,” as long as you are in favor of them .

Our Media Hero -- The Sodomite.

Evidence of Prevalent Bias.

The American Family Association has monitored television shows dealing with homosexuality and has found that, with a single possible exception, every one of the more than 700 television shows dealing with the subject of sexual perverts over the last five years has portrayed homosexuals as heros or sensitive, caring people without a single character flaw.[2]

A 1987 study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs noted that only nine percent of the persons depicted on television with AIDS are identified as homosexual or bisexual, when in reality, 73 percent of such persons have AIDS. One shining example was Ryan White, whose death by AIDS caused by a blood transfusion was a godsend for the homosexuals, who milked his memory for all it was worth. This is in keeping with the homosexual lobby’s attempt to define AIDS as anything but the “gay disease” it is. Extension of a Trend. All of this is just an extension of a trend that has been accelerating in the printed media since the turn of the century: The replacement of the worship of God with the worship of the sodomite.

The Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature indexes the “most significant” articles culled from leading national periodicals each year and compiles them by topic. The chart below summarizes the Guide’s findings regarding two specific topics: Major articles dealing with Jesus Christ and articles that cover prominent sodomites.

It is obvious that Our Lord is losing the media’s attention, which is increasingly wandering from moral standards to whatever cause happens to be trendy at the moment.

THE SHIFTING EMPHASIS OF THE PRINT MEDIA SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY: CHRIST VS. HOMOSEXUALS

	Major Articles On;
Time Period	Jesus	Homosexuals
1900 to 1921	237 (100%)	0 (0%)
1922 to 1941	411 (98%)	7 (2%)
1942 to 1961	344 (87%)	53 (13%)
1962 to 1981	586 (54%)	495 (46%)
1982 to 1988	243 (43%)	326 (57%)

Reference. Family Research Newsletter, Fall 1989, page 7.

The Reason.

Introduction.

As the Lichter-Rothman studies have shown, most members of the media feel that they should not only provide entertainment, but work for social change. This is evident in many recent depictions of homosexuals. Just three of the more blatant examples are described below.

“Welcome Home, Bobby.”

The February 22, 1986 prime-time CBS special “Welcome Home, Bobby” begins by showing a 16-year old who believes that he is ‘sick’ because he is homosexual. Bobby is then seduced by a 35-year old homosexual, and the rest of the movie shows their courtship, with dates, tender words and gestures, and expensive gifts. Literally everyone supports Bobby’s homosexuality -- his teachers, businessmen, even a Catholic priest -- and they all tell him how perfectly normal this lifestyle is. These people are portrayed as intelligent, loving, and caring. The only holdout is Bobby’s father, who is portrayed as a selfish, narrow-minded, judgmental bigot. But even he ‘becomes enlightened’ and “comes to accept Bobby just the way he is.”[8]

My Two Perverts.

The April 7, 1986 television movie “My Two Loves” presents lesbianism as a perfectly normal lifestyle for a widow. She meets Marjorie, a veteran lesbian, who is given plenty of air time to extol the “many virtues of bisexuality.” The numerous scenes of lesbianism include the two women in bed and strolling hand-in-hand down a street, happy as can be. ABC had hired veteran lesbian/feminist writer Rita Mae Brown, and TV scriptwriter Reginald Rose revealed that the network was not only willing but “eager” to air “My Two Loves.”[9]

“The Women of Brewster Place.”

The ABC March 19-20, 1988 special “The Women of Brewster Place,” produced by Oprah Winfrey, centers around the lives of seven black women living in a ghetto. Naturally, a minister is depicted as a lecher who uses his influence to take women members of his congregation to bed. Miss Sophie, another Christian, is a hateful busybody who snoops and lectures, judges and gossips about everyone. She shouts at a caring, gracious, kind and humble lesbian at a meeting, and the lesbian runs out, crying. Sophie, of course, has a perpetual frown on her wrinkled face and the lesbian is a beauty who is always kind and nonjudgmental.[10]

==========================================

[1] Television producer James Komack, quoted in David A. Noebel. The Homosexual Revolution . Tulsa: The American College Press. 1978, 190 pages.

[2] Joseph Farah. “Liberation From Homosexuality: TV’s Taboo Subject.” American Family Association Journal , February 1988, page 12.

[3] Tim Wildmon. “Networks Practice Double Standard.” American Family Association Journal , May 1989, page 2.

[4] Newspage. “Did Homosexuals Vandalize Pro-Life Newspaper’s Machines?” Focus on the Family Citizen , November 19, 1990, page 5.

[5] “Mahony and the Times .” National Catholic Register , February 11, 1990, page 4.

[6] Randall Murphree. “AIDS and the Media: Whitewashed Tombs.” National Federation for Decency Journal , July 1987, page 16.

[7] Paul Harvey. “Name of the Game is Intolerance.” Conservative Chronicle , June 20, 1990, Page 27.

[8] “AIDS, Gays, and the Media.” American Family Association Journal , February 1988, page 17.

[9] “ABC Pushes Lesbian Love in Movie.”National Federation for Decency Journal , May/June 1986, pages 21 and 22.

[10] “Adulterous Preacher, Illicit Sex Are in NBC Special Movie.” American Family Association Journal , May 1989, pages 4 and 5.

==========================================