By Tom Quiner
Although conservatives rightly get riled up when news coverage is distorted, I think the bigger issue is what is (and isn’t) covered, and how in-depth that coverage is.
The same goes with history. There is plenty of historical revisionism that takes place by liberal historians. We are witnessing exactly that with what is becoming the American culture’s go-to resource for historical fact, Wikipedia.
I urge you to tread cautiously with this resource.
Information is often selectively presented with a liberal bias. Take the late President of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto.
Wikipedia gives her expansive coverage. And she deserves it. She came from a powerful Pakistani political family and became the youngest and first woman elected President of a predominantly Muslim country.
All of that is impressive.
Wikipedia left out a critical piece of information in their 8000 word treatment of the Bhutto historical record: she was ardently pro-life. Even more, she opposed Hilary Clinton’s efforts to establish an international right to abortion. Ms. Bhutto lead a delegation to a high-stakes United Nations conference in Cairo back in 1994 that garnered tremendous international press. She was one of only two women allowed to address the conference. What she said astounded:
“I dream … of a world where we can commit our social resources to the development of human life and not to its destruction.”
Ms. Bhutto represents a form of feminism very much reviled by liberal journalists and historians: one that embraces a culture of life.
Isn’t that newsworthy?
Shouldn’t that be part of the historical record?
Not at Wikipedia.