Washington Post ombud Patrick Pexton (2/22/13) took up the question in a recent column, “Is the Post Pro-Gay?” Or as a conservative reader put it: “Is there no room in the Post for those who support the male/female, procreative model of marriage?”
Patrick Pexton
Pexton says that he has trouble understanding this point of view:
Many Americans feel that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry diminishes the value of their heterosexual marriages. I don’t understand this. The lesbian couple down the street raising two kids or the two men across the hall in your condominium—how do those unions take anything away from the sanctity, fidelity or joy you take in your heterosexual marriage?
Still, he concludes by agreeing with the conservative reader. Without citing any examples of what he considers to be unfair treatment of opponents of marriage equality, Pexton writes: “The Post should do a better job of understanding and conveying to readers, with detachment and objectivity, the beliefs and the fears of social conservatives.”
It’s an interesting example of the media’s peculiar use of the word “objectivity.” There is, as Pexton acknowledges, no objective evidence that allowing two people of the same gender to marry will harm mixed-gender marriages. So you might think objective reporting would treat that assertion as a dubious claim. But to be “objective” in the media sense means to treat the idea that marriage equality is a threat to heterosexual’s marriages as a perfectly valid position—no evidence necessary.
I have been thinking lately that what we need is not an objective press but an empirical one—one that strives to report the world as it really is, and tries to base its reporting on demonstrable facts. On so many issues—from climate to economics to foreign policy—that would be a much different media from the one we have now.
You’re tempted to call this another example of false balance, but the reality is that the vast majority of the time, there is no balance to corpress coverage or commentary, false or otherwise.
On matters of foreign policy (aka “empire”) or economics (aka “exploitation”), especially, the views of those who question the foundations of those paradigms are absent, with only quibblers permitted a voice, usually muted.
In this instance, there is this faux “objectivity”, equating the rights of one group to be free of discrimination with those claimed by another to discriminate (and despise).
Place it in an earlier (or not) context, with a segregationist complaining of his view of the “inherent inferiority of the coloreds” being given short shrift, and the perniciousness of the argument becomes plain.
In either situation, the objective reality of injustice is obscured
And that is the primary purpose of “the news media”
If we’re being empirical about it.
I would be more inclined to accept the perspective of the “conservative reader” if it were also widely held that wealth and privilege wherever it exists were equally diminished by poverty and under privilege wherever it exists. I suspect most “conservative readers” have never had this perspective disturb their thinking.
Once again, Doug Latimer wins the argument. Good pointing out that in the historical context, many battles were fought for very “pernicious” reasons. It is too bad we cannot see ourselves in our own historical context — think how many ridiculous, cruel, and painful epochs would be avoided.
Ta for the props, No Difference.
I wish there were much more focus on the role of the corpress, as well as the “entertainment” industry and “educational” institutions, in propagating and facilitating the lies and distortions that allow those in power to keep us ignorant and divided.
Knowledge is power
And they know it.
Knowledge is not power; Micheal Parenti made that point a long time ago. A librarian is one of the most knowledgeable persons, yet they have little power. A politician is often very ignorant (look to our TEA party idiots) and yet they are often the most powerful people around.
So it’s not knowledge itself that is power, it is the ability to use the people who have knowledge that is power. The post knows how to make the peeps go squeak and that is their power. And that is what this person is doing, using the power to make the people with knowledge do what they (the paper and it’s Corporate masters) want.
It is not money that matters. It is TIME that is most precious.
Personal time is a gift cherished by, both, rich and poor alike.
The future is promising…
The word “objective” USED TO mean that it was possible to know the truth………….in our very post modern media complex “objective” means that it IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
Padremellyrn
(And if you reply, please include some form of my name when doing so, as I search on it)
One has to know what’s happening in order to confront it. That is the knowledge I speak of. Librarians are often extremely ignorant of that reality, as are most folks.
That is the purpose of propaganda and media censorship, self imposed and from the gummint. They wouldn’t place such enormous emphasis on it were it not vital to their continued control, would they?
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that knowledge lays the path to power, with no guarantee that we will arrive at our destination
But no roadmap to know the way without it.
The right/left media is the number 1 problem we have today. If talk radio hosts were held accountable for lies of ommission, prpoaganda and cherry picking stories we would not have so many misinformed Americans. A democracy requires an INFORMED citizenry. Our corporate owned profit driven media is destroying democracy and has done a lot towards our current theocratic plutocracy.
Daniel, what deeply perturbs me about the use of such terms is the implication inherent in them – intended or not – that if those facilitating these lies could somehow be shown reality, they’d have a “Saul on the road to Damascus” moment.
I think we both know that to be a fantasy.
And we have mountains of evidence of instances in which delusion played no role, when the truth was known, indisputable
And willfully ignored or distorted.
So there’s a contradiction there, don’t you think?
Regardless, I think it’s one thing to be honestly ignorant of the facts, as so many people are
And quite another to engage in self, and self interested, delusion.
But at some level, it’s all academic, isn’t it?
The same death and destruction flows from their acts, and our obligation to confront that remains the same.
Maybe a very few of these elites can be reached with reason
But time and energy is much more effectively spent on appealing to those whose consciences and circumstances make them receptive to seeing the world clearly
And hopefully acting on that vision.
Ho hum….More talk of gay marriage as the Titanic goes down.Ok I will play.Mr Pexton is simply saying that a large section of the press treats conservative ideals as nuts(even though in many cases it speaks for the majority of people)I have always seen this as purely political,having little to do with the discussion.There are any number of people who disagree with gay marriage in this country.Having more than one wife and all the rest.They dont want the notion of marriage to be obliterated into a hundred sub sects, on the slippery slope to anything goes a roma.Personally I could give a rats ass how people want to define themselves.Get rid of all legal implairments to a same sex joinings.Then if gay people have half a brain, they will come up with a new name for marriage .One that has more binding ideals than”marriage”.80% of which end in disaster.Till then this leftist idea of separate,mock and destroy anyone with traditional beliefs, is in line with every other move they make.
“fair and balanced” reporting ? when congress goes on strike and it’s leaders refuse to pull their load for the needs of the nation. when they put party before country and lie about events and their true goals??? i expect just the unadulterated facts, devoid of fairness or spin and backed by evidence. when a speaker of the house blames the Senate, court, or the white house for not doing the houses business
when these event happen, when an argument doesn’t hold water, or avoids fact or logic. Media Say so.. Don’t manufacture “talking points” to balance the argument. the media once had an obligation to investigate and provide information in the public interest a mandate we should restore to any media premised as NEWS or information. . . you want a brand? try “truth, proof and accuracy “