NYT Public Editor: Lack of Coverage of March shows bias?

[Splashdown]

Hundreds, if not thousands, of New Yorkers – many of them Catholics – piled onto buses in the freezing cold and headed down to Washington this week for the 41st annual March for Life, the world’s largest anti-abortion gathering.

Was this local participation, or the event itself, worthy of a news story in the paper of record? Apparently not.

Many readers wrote to me about the lack of coverage in Thursday’s paper. Kevin Collins, a New York City resident, was among them. He wrote:
 

• 
  I am disappointed by the NY Times’ lack of coverage of yesterday’s “March for Life” in Washington DC.
   
  Although I understand that the position of the marchers is contrary to the editorial position of your paper, I believe a paper of the NY Times’ stature has a duty to fairly report significant national events.

link

One of the excuses the NYT gives is that the event happens every year, so it's not newsworthy.

Know what else happens every year?

MLK Day.

The Super Bowl.

The State of the Union Address.

Think there's any coverage of those events?

 

[Lacarnut]

Al grease ball Sharpton can muster 30 sprockets from his organization to protest and it makes news at the NY Slime. The lack of coverage is nothing new for this rotten outfit.

[Splashdown]

I AM shocked that the Public editor said the Times should have sent a reporter. That in itself is a bit of an admission.