E-mail me| Conduct a Keyword Search of this
complete site and visit my main index Back to Abortion - Back to Religious Education Resources - Back to Media - Back to Catholic Education |
April-May 1998Most people would agree that the recent Abortion debate in Western Australia provided a reflection of the way people in Western Australia conduct a campaign and fight for what they believe. One thing it taught me as a teacher, is how influential the media can be, especially when it very clearly demonstrates its own agenda. This is what occurred in Perth recently, as the abortion debate ensued. The following is an attempt to take a critical look at how the media, in particular the Commercial Television Stations, presented the pro-life and pro-abortion/choice stance of various members of the public. As a teacher, who was witness to two principal pro-life rallies during the debate (at the Challenge Stadium, and Parliament House), I feel it is my duty to critique the interpretation the public was given about these rallies. Not only was the truth selectively revealed, the truth was distorted to such an extent that it is shameful. Dr. Beverly Macmillan and the Challenge Stadium For the 1163 people who gathered at the Challenge Stadium in April to listen to Dr. Beverly Macmillan, an ex-abortionist, there were mixed feelings. I felt privileged to be part of this special event; an event, which was predominantly supportive of the pro-life cause but which, was to some extent detrimental because of the media's selective representation, 'gate crashing' and two angry men who didn't help things. Those of you reading this will be aware of one station's portrayal of an angry pro-life man removing a placard from two 'innocent' young ladies who decided to gate crash and hold up their pro-abortion placard in front of the centre stage. You may also recall the camera's close attention to the old man who decided to join in when the two ladies were being escorted out of the Stadium. The Television Station (from memory it was Channel 9) only captured this aspect of the entire evening and the impression given to the public was very clear; pro-lifers (or as we are called, anti-abortionists), are intolerant of others' views, as well as being violent. I knew that the news presentation would be negative when I saw the news crew 'pack up' just after their sensational event. They had obtained what they had seemingly come for. They did not remain for Dr. Beverly's talk at all. It is important that people are aware of how the Media operates. Contrary to what some may believe, even teachers, News coverage can be extremely biased, and the unknowing public has no other point of reference from which to gauge the veracity of the Media's perceptions. Therefore, on this occasion, the wider public missed out on what occurred at the Stadium. Below is a list of speakers and proceedings.
It is obvious, that the media had no interest in providing information, which reflected the real purpose for Dr. Macmillan's visit to Perth; to clearly and realistically and truthfully discuss and provide evidence of the effects of Abortion on women and, of course, unborn children. Their agenda was clear: keep any information which demonstrates the evil and conspiratorial nature of the abortion industry, out of public view, and highlight every possible action or event which would incriminate the pro-life movement, thereby rendering its position futile, and an 'evil' which must not be tolerated. March 31 1998 - Pro-life Parliament House Rally I must explain, firstly, why I had the opportunity to be present at this historic occasion when, as a teacher, I should have been at school. Well, simply, I owe my gratitude to an understanding Principal who was aware of the use I could make of the video I took at the Rally, especially with regards to the Year 11 Beliefs and Values unit 'Value Life'. After having experienced it and seeing the presentation of the event in the media that evening, I am glad that I was present and able to film what occurred. Firstly, let's remember that the Rally occurred after Richard Egan obtained information about women who had been aborted on the previous Wednesday at an abortion mill in Midland as well as information regarding the instruments used in these abortions. (Whilst an explanation of this will be forthcoming, suffice it to say right now, that contrary to the way the event was presented in all the media, Richard Egan's actions were not illegal, and were actually testimony to the careless attitude with which the Abortion Mill disposed of their confidential material.) Let us now take a close look at how Channels 7, 9 and 10 handled the Rally in some detail. You may also like to provide this information to English and or Media teachers who are studying bias in their classes. (Please note that the items in Italics refer to my version of events and my queries) CHANNEL 10 Greg Pierce begins the report by saying "A new protest; New Anger' referring to pro-lifers. "Abortion outcry [as] hundreds converge on Parliament House in an eleventh hour bid to scuttle reforms. There were angry scenes as 2500 protesters took their message to our politicians. Graham Butler was there...... (I like the use of the word 'converge'. We didn't all show up there at once! The only 'angry' scenes I witnessed were the loud cries of ''No" when the crowd were asked if they wanted Abortion decriminilised and when the few pro-choice people present created a fuss, as I will explain later. I would call none of them angry. Also, notice Greg Pierce's use of the personal pronoun 'our' when referring to the politicians the pro-lifers were 'converging' on. It is clear that the writers of Greg's report presume the majority of viewers, if not all, are against the actions of the pro-life movement! The stance of Channel 10 appears to be pro-abortion or pro-choice. So much for objectivity.) Graham Butler "Greg, today was the anti-abortionist day of force. They were here in number, and while most of the 2500 supporters were quite happy to listen to the speakers, the action of some of the anti-abortion supporters has been sternly criticised and labelled as dirty tactics" Graham then continues to divert attention from the content of the Rally and proceeds to repeat the previous day's news regarding the 'confidential material' released. (This is very clever indeed. Graham succeeds in turning the Rally into an angry and 'dirty' tactic by linking the report on the Rally with unrelated events. He makes it seem that these tactics were continued on the day and committed by those present. All were content to listen to speakers and wave placards, not just some.) His voice over makes the following statements:
(Notice the tone of surprise in his voice. Furthermore, when the pro-life people are seen they are either 'angrily protesting' of undertaking dirty tactics.)
(This really got to me. Channel ten conveniently showed one of the VERY FEW Primary aged students present at the rally. As far as I saw, there were only about 3 of these students and all from the one school, an independent Catholic School. The extended close up on a young boy as a visual backdrop to the above statement clearly demonstrates what Channel Ten were trying to do. One of my students fell into their trap when she blurted out angrily when I showed them the Channel Ten version of events, "That's disgusting bringing children to this.." or words to that effect. Secondly, Catholic Schools had the option of coming and of coming freely. They were not brought in to provide a youthful face, as if it was a political ploy. Students have a right to show Politicians that contrary to what people think, (especially, it would seem Channel Ten) the youth have something to say(and my experience indicates that most youth are against abortion once they are fully informed). Parental support was also required before students could come. Thirdly, the 'boo' which is heard in the background as the name of the Catholic Church is mentioned was actually taken from an event later on in the Rally. The Boo came from the two or three pro-choice women present when the rest of us cheered Brian Peechey, one of the speakers. In this report, the 'Boo' is presented as directed against the Catholic Church for 'bringing in the young', the vast majority of whom I might add, were from High Schools. The bias is obvious and is a complete distortion of the truth as well as an attack against the Church. It simply did not occur neither when the report suggests, nor for the purpose the report suggests.)
(According to Dr. Lisa Shannon, a Doctor, Dr. Scott Blackwell is only one of a small number of doctors who support abortion. He is also not speaking on behalf of all doctors in the Australian Medical Association even though he is presented as such when he is interviewed. When Dr. Lisa Shannon spoke at the Rally, she clearly stated that "Doctors have been misrepresented by a small number of pro-abortion doctors."
(You will notice he was never charged for this and the media must have known that the robbery at the clinic a few days earlier had been unrelated. However, they still made the implication that the papers and the robbery were connected. They were not.)
(This, of course, another stunt to show up Richard Egan, and make the Abortionists out to be victims. Nothing eventuated, if this meeting actually occurred at all.)
(Premier Richard Court is presented as a victim here. It is amazing he is claiming that the advertisement which highlighted his hypocrisy, is unethical and below the belt. It is a fact that he claimed to be Pro-life in the lead up to him becoming Premier and that he demonstrated that he was less than that during the abortion debate, for the most part, when it counted the most.)
(The inclusion of this was quite amusing to some extent. First of all, the words of this pro-choice lady are included in the context of the 'angry protest' which, you will recall, the viewers have at this point associated with pro-lifers. The irony is that this lady is pro-choice thereby demonstrating that Channel ten was grasping at straws. It is interesting that Channel Ten was the only station to show this lady standing next to a small boy as she makes her colossal statement " We don't need any more unwanted babies" Perhaps the child was her own and of course he was wanted!! If noting else, the boy's presence serves to make this woman a victim as well. I can assure you, as the following transcript reflects, this woman was less than a victim. I was filming directly behind this lady when she spoke before the Rally speakers spoke. Below is a transcript of what occurred. I must admit, a naughty pro-life man told the lady to stop being a (bleep) which I don't think was suitable. I am actually surprised the cameras did not pick it up. The following is what I could pick up. Lady: Pay for their education and stop putting money into the Christian Schools Others: (I couldn't hear this) Lady: Isn't it? Isn't it? Share! Can't you share? Other: Share what? Lady: Christian schools bringing up little 'God' children to make little unwanted babies. Can't we all share together? (Later on) Lady (to the whole crowd): Have you planted any trees lately? Has anybody planted any trees lately? Cause we're all dying cause there's no trees. Stop planting your seeds in people's wombs and plant some trees. Let's get some contraception on the way" Other: Don't be a ....... Other: Are trees more valuable than life? At this point a man holding up a sign, probably fed up with her rhetoric (I know I was), decided to move in front of her although remaining about a metre in front of her, to demonstrate his protest. Ten seconds later, the lady had begun pushing him gently and the police officer present beside me asked her to stop or she would be removed. She promised Lady (to man): The women will stand up to you men! Other lady with her: You have no respect for women. Clearly, I wonder why Channel Ten didn't see fit to include these comments? It is obvious. The lady's words would have discredited the pro-choice argument somewhat. They chose to quote her words regarding 'unwanted babies' instead. (You will notice that nobody else among the crowd was 'interviewed' individually). I suppose that argument could appeal to some people although it is not one that supports responsible sexuality. It is also obvious this lady does not see a respectful use of natural contraception as part of her plan in ensuring no 'unwanted babies'. It was soon after this when the women 'booed' because we cheered Brian Peechey and his comments, and not, as indicated before, as a result of seeing school children brought in to the Rally.
(As history has shown, the presumption that the abortion debate would be over soon sprang from a misconception that most people wanted Abortion on demand. In one of the speeches sent to me by a Parliamentarian, I discovered that the 82% figure indicating support for the decrimilisation of abortion, which was rammed down our throats, came from a poll of only 400 selected people. The repetition of the "eleventh hour bid' concept implies that Channel ten thought the Abortion debate was a simple one)
(At one point in Dr. Lisa Shannon's speech at the Rally, she had to hand over her child Caleb whom she had been holding to that point, and continued to speak. I thought it was interesting that this Doctor was not shown by this station with her child, while the pro-choice lady, who advocates abortion, was shown with a child whom she was not holding and who was probably not even hers.)
(So much for neutrality. Who is hoping? All of Western Australia apart from Pro-Lifers, I suppose. This comment serves to betray the Media's growing exhaustion with the Abortion debate and the lack of seriousness with which they viewed it. It took three weeks or so before a final vote was taken. So I ask, why should the media be allowed to influence people on issues about which they have no authority or of which they have no real understanding, or towards which they lack sensitivity? Unfortunately, that is how it is.) Channel 7 This station included the Abortion debate as its third item, not its headline and began with Susanna Carr stating 'The debate is still dragging on." (Another example of Media projecting own opinion on debate. It is obvious this debate is not an important one and does not deserve proper attention and time) Mara Pritchard comments " Emotions are certainly reaching fever pitch. Yesterday we had the release of confidential patient information. Today, police confirm they are investigating whether that was stolen." (The material was not stolen. The patient information reference, as with the Channel Ten report, is mentioned to cloud the purpose of the Rally once again.) "2500 priests, parents and protesters loudly demanded there be no change to WA abortion Laws" (Notice the alliterative effect. It is a pity that her choice of words leads one to feel that the Rally was just a religious event sponsored and manipulated by priests, who already have a bad name in WA and in the media. Very clever!) At this point, there is a close up shot of an old lady and an Asian man yelling out their protest loud and clear. They are portrayed as incensed and almost possessed, especially the man, given the camera angle utilised. This shot creates the impression that few youth were present. This was not true! "23, 000 signatories, a dozen speakers called on Parliament to reject both Abortion Bills which.....amounted to murder" (I can't fault this point! Channel ten made sure not to mention the 23000 signatures, which were obtained over one weekend, against Abortion.) Channel 7 also included the interview with Richard Court (but were smart enough to edit out his ironical comment on the 'unethical nature' of the advertisement, which appeared in the papers.) They also included a picture of the Archbishop, Brian Peechey and Dr. Lisa Shannon (this time with her child Caleb), as they addressed the people. (However, they did not interview any of the Pro-Life MP's who spoke at the rally but showed an interview conducted with Mr. Moore who spoke on the developments in the house with regards to the Foss Bill etc. He was not at the Rally.) The final image was of a lady holding a crucifix. (This reinforced the idea that the pro-life movement is only a Christian one rather than human rights one) Channel 9 The News programme opened with the words (and corresponding scenes), "loud cries. Anti-abortion loud and clear." Mr. Willessee stated as the report ensued, "Today, hundred's of pro-life demonstrators marched outside the House in a last ditch bid to prevent abortion being legalised." (Again, a presumption that it was inevitable that the Abortion laws would be changed. Implication? The pro-life movement is backward, futile and not in touch with the public the Channel 9 crew represent) Dixie Marshall then took over. Dixie made it quite clear that it was a "deeply religious Rally" and that it was the first time that a Catholic Archbishop had taken to the steps of Parliament House. The visual depiction of the Rally then began. In fact the feature was quite artistic, since it began and ended with the mass praying of the 'Our Father' which we all engaged in at the end of the rally. Dixie's voice over then states, "They came in their thousands, Pro-Life and passionate" (They sure love to exaggerate and use alliteration!) "Led by Barry Hickey [who protested] with spirit" The "Stand for Life" placard held by a member of the audience was then demonstrated. "Hundreds of school children added their voice...[another exaggeration] so did doctors, politicians, ordinary citizens and men" Pastor Andrew Landsdown's comment that being a man doesn't exclude him from speaking on abortion was then quoted. (It is interesting to note the different impression created by 'doctors, politicians, ordinary citizens' as opposed to 'priests, parents and protesters as seen earlier!!! I guess it is clear, so far, that Channel Nine's presentation is not that bad!) "A few pro-choice people turned up" {and the lady is quoted again, "We don't need any unwanted babies"}, but this was mostly a peaceful protest, soft but strong" The final scene is then a close up of a graceful High school student, in the prayer position, and the 'Our Father' being prayed. (I felt this presentation was much closer to what I witnessed on the day. However the following presentation on the 'outcome' inside the house was another weak one, poorly reflective of the sentiment of so many people) It is mentioned that an Outcome is expected "tonight" and then intense lobbying is continuing. The 'Premier Story" is referred to again and he is made out to be a victim, as he is 'incensed' at the use of the family photograph. (Again, it is important to note the irony of using the word 'family' in the context of this debate.) Dixie then states "The Right to Lifers are unrepentant" and Richard Egan is quoted as stating "The premier can't have it both ways. He can't sell himself to us as a pro-life Premier and then sponsor a Bill of this kind.." [Referring to the Foss Bill] (I think the quote is objective but the honesty in it is clouded by Dixie's choice of "unrepentant' in describing the inclusion of the advertisement. What was expressed was true, not slander. ) The most likely outcome of the Abortion debate was then predicted, once again 'jumping the gun.' WHAT DID THE NEWS STATIONS LEAVE OUT IN THEIR REPORTS? What banners were included which were not shown on the News?
Any particulars about Richard Egan
Who spoke, apart from those shown on Television?
Barbara Scott then proceeded to make an eloquent comparison between oppression of women in the past and abortion as oppression by women and of women. "The oppression of women relied upon the argument that this is not a moral one. So does abortion. The oppression of women relied upon politicians not interfering in so called personal and domestic issues. So does abortion. The oppression of women relied upon the argument that the Church should not impose their values on the rest of society. So does abortion. The oppression of women relied upon the argument that the victim did not have rights. So does abortion. The oppression of women relied upon the argument that the victim did not have a voice. So does abortion. The oppression of women relied upon the claim that it led to the common good. So does abortion. We will stand for life. This is not just a legal issue. This is not just a political issue. This is not just a moral issue. This is not just a religious issue. This is not just a women's issue. This is a human rights issue" One of the male politicians mentioned above also stated; "I know that some of the pr-life letters have not been opened. I know that some of the video materials given to MPs to view have not been viewed by some. We have people prepared to make a law, what they're not prepared to look at." It is very clear, when one takes a good look at the selection of detail employed by the News stations as well as the language used by reporters, that the Media presentation of the Abortion debate was extremely biased. Unfortunately, most people will never know this unless the word is spread and that is why this report has been written. I wonder? Do teachers in our schools, who were not present at the Rallies and who know little about the pro-Life movement, really understand that the media has presented a distorted view of the whole debate? I am certain, through no fault of their own, that the only perceptions they will have of the different sides of the argument will be those presented by the Media. As we have seen, one cannot but have a negative view of the Pro-Life movement if one relies on the Media's version. To summarise, this report has made the following points.
I leave you with this question. Does all the above lead one to conclude that the Media, for the most part, participated in an anti-life conspiracy? It makes you wonder! The following link is a testimony from a friend I met through my web site. Her name is Melanie and she had an abortion in October, 1999. She has given me permission to print her story. Her hope is that she can help other young women contemplating abortion. Melanie told me recently, " If I can keep one girl from making the choice that I made, it would mean the world to me." |