David Quinn
Photo: Markus Spiske 
Coverage of eco and pro-life activism are a case study in media bias, writes David Quinn
If you want to know what a favoured movement looks like, and you wish to contrast it with one that is disfavoured, look no further that the environmentalist and pro-life movements. The starkly differing ways in which they are covered is a study in media bias.
Over the past fortnight or so, you have probably been reading or hearing quite a lot about a group called ‘Extinction Rebellion’.
Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’ for short) took to the streets of capital cities in various Western countries recently, including Dublin.
Activists chained themselves to the railings of prominent buildings, glued themselves to doorways and pathways, blocked traffic, disrupted air travel, sprayed fake ‘blood’ at the Treasury building in London, marched through shops like Pennys to protest against ‘fast fashion’ and staged ‘die-ins’ to highlight the threat of climate change to our lives.
The group caused far less disruption in Dublin than in other cities, simply because it didn’t have enough activists to achieve its aims. In London traffic was far more disrupted than here.
Cooperation
The protest seemed to have the full cooperation of the Gardaí, for the most part. It is true that some members were arrested after they blocked the rear entrance of Leinster House, but apart from that, members of the Gardaí could be seen on the streets of Dublin seemingly making it as easy as possible to cause traffic disruption in the city centre.
XR were allowed to take over one side of Merrion Square for a week and set up a stage there for music acts and speakers. They were also permitted to set up tents in Merrion Square Park for the week.
Media coverage was overwhelmingly favourable. Few journalists asked them tough questions. They were allowed to make their claims mostly unchallenged. One news bulletin allowed an activist on Saturday to say that in years to come, people would be able to paddle down O’Connell Street on a kayak because of rising sea levels. She wasn’t asked to back this up.
Minister Katherine Zappone gave her support to the protests.
A few weeks ago, we had the third ‘climate strike’ by school children. They involved skipping class and marching through the streets instead. Thousands turned out, but why wouldn’t they if it meant time off school?
Environment Minister Richard Bruton attended the first one, and said of the most recent protest: “Young people have led the way.”
The ‘climate strikes’ have been inspired by 16-year old Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg, who has shot to fame recently. She addressed the UN General Assembly a few weeks ago, chastising adults for ruining the planet and robbing her of her childhood. “How dare you,” she said, as she denounced us.
If pro-lifers deliberately disrupted traffic, it is extremely likely that the Gardai would act swiftly to remove them from the streets with the full encouragement of the Government”
She is rarely challenged, and when she is, the person asking the tough question is accused of victimising, and even ‘hating’ her.
This is what a state- and media-approved movement looks like.
Contrast this with how the pro-life movement is regarded. Can you imagine any circumstances in which a pro-life group would be given one side of Merrion Square for a week and allowed to set up tents nearby? Can you imagine Gardaí allowing such a group to deliberately disrupt traffic?
Would schoolchildren be allowed to skip class in order to march through the streets protesting against the mass killing of the unborn all over the world?
If the pro-life movement nominated a 16-year-old girl as its symbolic leader, would she be placed above all criticism, or would we be accused of exploiting her?
Would we be allowed to make wild claims, or any claims at all, without being rigorously fact-checked and challenged?
We can even see the bias at work in the way protests are photographed. If the media approve of a demonstration, and there are few in attendance, a tight-in shot will be taken so as to make the protest seem bigger than it is.
On the other hand, when the protest is not approved of, and not many are taking part, then the shot will pan-out so as to show a relatively empty street.
If pro-lifers deliberately disrupted traffic, it is extremely likely that the Gardai would act swiftly to remove them from the streets with the full encouragement of the Government and the media. There would be lots of interviews with angry motorists.
And as we know, far from the Government approving of and facilitating the pro-life movement, Health Minister, Simon Harris, wants to make it impossible for pro-life activists to take part in vigils, never mind protests, outside hospitals where abortions take place, or GP clinics where the abortion pill is prescribed. We find our basic rights under attack from an extremely hostile political establishment.
None of the above is to cast judgement on the environmentalist movement one way or the other, not even its extreme end, Extinction Rebellion.
But the double standard in how it is covered compared with how the pro-life movement is covered could not be more clear.
The fact is, protesting against the threat to the future of the planet is fashionable, but highlighting the literal deliberate extinction of millions upon millions of unborn lives each year, is not. We want one movement to flourish, and the other to die off. That is obvious from how the Government and the media react to each one.
