The casual observer who may not have read the accompanying article (which admittedly was more accurate in its coverage) would be left with an impression that bears no resemblance to reality.
Dan Carrigg, Leonardtown, Md.
I had to read the article “On Roe’s 40th anniversary, more prayers to overturn it” [Metro, Jan. 26] three times to be sure I hadn’t missed it, but indeed, there was no mention of anyone marching in favor of a woman’s right to choose. Odd when the signs featured most prominently in the photo accompanying the article were pro-choice.
Kit Hope, Silver Spring
The article about the March for Life offered only a ballpark estimate by the organizers on the number of rally attendees, after stating that police no longer estimate crowd size and it is “difficult to judge” how many people attended.
Imagine my surprise, then, the very next day, when the front page of the Metro section stated in a headline, “Nearly 1,000 rally on Mall to call for more gun control.” Perhaps it’s not difficult to estimate crowd size when it’s below 1,000?
Hilda Labrada Gore,
I’m disappointed in the lack of coverage The Post gave leading up to the March on Washington for Gun Control on Jan. 26. Nothing in the paper alerted the public that it was planned or of its route.
It’s also hard to believe that the coverage of a major public policy topic, and one being addressed by the administration, was not reported the next day on the front page.
On Jan. 27, The Post’s coverage of the March on Washington for Gun Control appeared below the fold on the Metro section cover. A day earlier, The Post’s coverage of an antiabortion rally topped the front page with a large color photo.
The issue of gun control is no less important than the antiabortion issue. It may be more important.
Why this imbalance in coverage?
Bob Tripp, Reston