Washington Gadfly

Newsbusters Nails Liberal Media For Pro-Panda Bias

Evan Gahr Investigative Journalist
Font Size:

Sure, Newsbusters.org editor Tim Graham ignored the scandalous Ed Schultz lawsuit for nearly three months, until his board members were contacted.

And close to one year after news broke that MSNBC president Phil Griffin likely perjured himself in depositions for the behemoth broadcaster he has not written one iota about that or even posted the highly incriminating video.

This self-appointed scourge of the liberal media is also keeping his readers in the dark about a well-documented sexual harassment lawsuit against the Washington Post; the race and gender discrimination complaint against the New York Times, covered extensively by the New York Post; and accusations in sworn affidavits that WaPo systematically purged older black employees and allowed a white vice-president to harass two of them.

But Graham sure does not let the big liberal media scandals get away from him.

But this week Newsbusters.com published a lengthy item by staff writer Katie Yoder complaining that the broadcast networks gave the January 17 debut of the National Zoo’s baby panda 26 times more coverage than annual March for Life held in Washington last Friday.

It was 9 minutes and 36 seconds for Bei Bei but only 20 seconds  news about the  demonstration.

In what sounds like something from a Steven Colbert script ,  Yoder solemnly declared that the different proves, Journalists don’t care about the unborn, but they care about the newly born if they happen to be adorable animals.

“How dare they. There’s no denying that panda cubs are cute and attention-worthy. But there’s something terribly wrong when the networks devote minutes to animals, while only sparing seconds to human beings.”

Hello?

Is the difference really surprising? The baby panda is a lot cuter than the anti-abortion protestors.  Plus, little steps for little feet, Katie, news coverage is geared to the unusual.

For example, if somebody’s dog leaves his “calling card” on the sidewalk the Washington Post does not cover it.

But if the wife of then-Washington City Paper writer Erik Wemple is arrested for picking up the doo—doo and throwing it at a neighborhood shop keeper that gets a lengthy story.

Similarly, a surviving baby panda at the National Zoo is a novelty, most don’t make it, but the March for Life is decades old.

So there are all kinds of possible reasons, other than the networks functioning as a liberal cabal, why the pandas got so much attention and the marchers did not.

But attributing the difference to liberal bias does not seem particularly plausible.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that a conservative organization would take a chapter from the leftist playbook and automatically assume that any kind of disparity indicates bias. Kind of the way liberals insist any racial disparities in the workforce, Oscar nominations or any organization (except the NBA) is a sure sign of bigotry.

Finally, Newsbusters and their fellow travelers at Breitbart need to understand that merely because journalists do not a cover a story in accordance with their particular preferences that is not necessarily a sign of liberal bias.

Reporters are entitled to a certain amount of discretion.

Especially with Pandas.