The NY Times had a total blackout of the March. For them it didn't exist.
For the past several years the Washington Post has provided good and fairly objective coverage.
This year, spotty coverage, and you can decide on the slant.
Here's the article -
Here are two letters to the editor, responding to the coverage -
And this is what the Washington Post Ombudsman wrote -
... you can find images of the large crowd taken by amateurs on Flickr or Facebook, and I imagine the AP took some, too. Probably Post photographers did as well.
But these shots didn’t find their way into the main Web photo gallery on the march. And I think this is where The Post fell down in its coverage of the march this year. And that’s mostly what antiabortion readers wrote to me about.
The online photo gallery contains 10 photos: seven tight shots of antiabortion demonstrators, two of protesters from the small abortion-rights counter-demonstration (HVCL NOTE; about 20 pro-aborts) on the steps of the Supreme Court and one that showed both sides confronting each other there. In fact, eight of the 10 shots were taken at the high court.
Emotional shots make better photos, yes, but I would have chosen more from the broad expanse of the rally, and at least one photo showing a lot of cheerful, festive people, which is what I see at most demonstrations that I have covered over the years, regardless of the issue at hand.
Vernon Loeb, Post Local editor, said, “In retrospect I wish we had given readers a better sense of the overall magnitude of the march. . .it was far larger than 17,000.”
Said Post Director of Photography Michel du Cille, “We can never please this crowd. We try for fairness to show both sides.”
Small potatoes, but at least the Ombudsman admitted this year's coverage was lacking. And the NY Times - what March?