All newspapers have a “slant.” It doesn’t necessarily mean they get the facts wrong – it’s just how they choose to interpret or misinterpret those facts for their readers.

The pro-life movement is the biggest victim of news blackouts and censorship. Who do you think would get front page coverage – 3,000 pro-lifers in the annual March For Life in Ottawa, or a guy in B.C. whose dog went missing for nine years and found his way back to his master? If you picked the 3,000 pro-lifers at the march, you are hopelessly naive and I’m going to turn your name over to a telemarketing firm as a good prospect.

The members of the media themselves often bring personal biases into play. I attended a large press conference at the Toronto Press Gallery a few years ago, when an abortionist working at a Catholic hospital in London, Ont. was complaining about his house being picketed by a few pro-lifers.

The abortionist was treated by the media with great deference (could the Nobel Prize for medicine be far off?) and was fed a host of sweetheart questions. I asked him: “Would your house be picketed if you were taking out appendixes?”

He said, “No.” The television cameras turned away from him and focused on me! I persisted, asking: “Well why are they picketing your house?” He flubbed an answer and began falling apart in front of everybody, when the organizers of the press conference hastily pulled the plug on him, abruptly ending the press conference.

CBC-TV carried my questions on the national news that night. Shortly afterwards at Queen’s Park, a CTV media man said: “Hey, Frank, we bleeped out your contribution on that doctor-from-London interview.”

Father Ted Colleton uses a good hypoethetical illustration: he is walking by a house and sees a baby fall into the swimming pool in the backyard with no one else is around. However, there is a big sign on the fence saying “No Trespassing.” Father Ted ignores it to climb over the fence and rescue the drowning baby. The mother would be extremely grateful, even though Father Ted did something illegal. He uses the same argument to justify rescuing babies from being killed in abortuaries.

If this happened – how would the mainstream media handle it?

Headline: “Catholic priest ignores no trespassing sign to rescue drowning baby.” The story would begin, “Father Ted Colleton ignored a ‘No Trespassing’ sign, climbed a 10-foot fence and rescued a drowning baby boy today. Mrs. Ida Jones, the baby’s mother, said she would not be pressing trespassing charges against Colleton because of his act of heroism. Jones had just left the backyard pool to answer the phone a minute before. Serena Jones, the 10-month-old baby girl, appeared none the worse for her ordeal. Police are considering laying charges against Colleton ¼”

Now if Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes was presented with the same situation ¼ Failing to climb the 10-foot-fence, Jim enters through an unlocked gate and dives into the swimming pool. Unfortunately, it is the shallow end. Fortunately Jim makes a shallow dive. He swims to the deep end and rescues the drowning baby. The mother is extremely grateful.

How would the media handle this story?

Headline: “Anti-abortion vigilante ignores trespassing sign to rescue drowning baby.” This story begins: “Jim Hughes, a Toronto anti-abortion activist, ignoring a prominent ‘No Trespassing’ sign, played the role of hero today when he rescued 10-month-old Serena Jones from drowning in the family swimming pool.

“Hughes admitted he saw the sign, but felt it was more important that the baby be saved from drowning. The police took Hughes, who was protesting loudly, away in handcuffs and are laying trespassing charges. Police said Hughes was known to them and is suspected of having a long history of interfering with abortion clinic profitability ¼”