Guess Which Reporter Was Actually There?

Two stories on the March for Life, from the same MSM conglomerate company, if not the same news organ.
Newsweek:  Who’s Missing at the 'Roe v. Wade' Anniversary Demonstrations? Young Women.

“The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says.
So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home. “Young women are still concerned about these issues, but they’re not trained to go out and protest,” says Kristy Maddux, assistant professor at the University of Maryland, who specializes in historical feminism.

Eh...not so much. Nellie Grey, the founder of the March, is getting older. But adapting to the grandmother of the event out of respect is not the same thing as the movement being all grandmas.  As you would know if you took even a cursory glance at the crowd, Ms. Inquisitive.

WaPo: Young activists adding fuel to anti-abortion side.

The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it's not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous. As always, we in Washington enjoy an up-close view of the health of various causes because of the city's role as the nation's most important setting for political demonstrations. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.
"We are the pro-life generation," said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30.

It's hardly worth refuting the preposterous Newsweek charge, but... here, just look at all the no young women.

 

 

All photos shamelessly pinched from here.

Amazing how being on the scene instead of at your desk can change what you report, isn't it?

Incidentally, just for the external hard drive, it appeared to me the March was bigger this year than last, which I wasn't expecting. It was obvious there would be a strong turn-out last year, in protest against Obama's election, and this year the weather reports insisted there was "100% chance" of precipitation, predicted to be sleet --so I was sure the numbers would be dimmed.

In the event, it didn't precipitate a drop and the sun even shone mildly and the crowd appeared to me to be roughly double last year's --which was itself the largest crowd I'd ever seen for the March for Life. It's a little hard for me to gauge because of the route change this year (since our parish marches from the same spot at the back of the usual route, I judge by how crowded it is where we are), but the crowd was very dense. 

That impression is justified by various unofficial reports --some are saying as many as 400,000 people participated, although the March for Life people are saying 250-300,000 I think. Check this out, for an idea:

Keep in mind the "spectators" watching the March go by are themselves Marchers, waiting for the crowd to pass so they can take up their places at the end of it.