Equal time? (cc photo: Tricky Toro)
When the law finally starts to catch up with the promise of equality for all, does one stop to wonder if anti-equality bigots feel left out?
That might not be the question you were asking in the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. But it’s the question NPR‘s All Things Considered tried to answer (“Is There Bias in Media’s Coverage of Gay Marriage Fight?,” 6/27/13).
Here’s host Audie Cornish:
Yesterday’s decisions by the Supreme Court on gay marriage brought widespread celebration and a lot of coverage of those celebrations. But cultural conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage believe recent coverage of the issue has not fairly reflected their views. They may have a point.
Cornish mentioned that “coverage reflects a struggle to both capture multiple voices in a complex debate” before handing off the segment to NPR‘s media correspondent David Folkenflik. He interviewed ABC correspondent Terry Moran, who he said told him that “the views of people who take issue with gay marriage are not always adequately reflected.” (FAIR once did an Action Alert about Moran and other reporters reporting a proposed anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment from the point of view of opponents of marriage equality.) He also quoted arch-conservative marriage equality opponent Cal Thomas, before citing research that supposedly shows a tilt in media coverage in favor of marriage equality advocates.
A few responses come to mind.
For starters, FAIR has documented for over 25 years how certain entirely legitimate points of view are marginalized in the press. (See the run up to the Iraq War for a dramatic example.) It is rare that for any part of corporate media to admit, in real-time, that they have not given adequate attention to the view that is apparently being marginalized. The fact that media figures have frequently expressed worry about not giving enough attention to the anti-marriage equality point of view (Extra!, 9/04, 5/13) suggests that media insiders think about being fair to advocates of heterosexuals-only marriage than they do about fairness to any number of other points of view.
And in this case, it is the point of view of people who want to deny equal rights to another class of people. The idea that much time should be spent wondering about how bigots might feel is strange. It is ironic–and revealing–that this group’s feelings of being marginalized are given so much attention. (Earlier this year, the Washington Post had the same bizarre discussion about not granting bigots adequate space.)
And on a broader issue, as Jim Naureckas (FAIR Blog, 2/27/13) pointed out, this reveals a warped sensibility about the concept of “journalistic objectivity,” at least as it is understood by some reporters. Opponent of equality might believe their “traditional” marriages are threatened by gay marriage; objectively speaking, that is absurd. But “objective” coverage is supposed to treat this objectively absurd position as though it were a reasonable point of view.
This reminded me of an NPR report (Morning Edition, 6/26/13) after Barack Obama’s big speech on climate policy. It was headlined “Coal Industry Concerned by Obama’s Climate Change Plans,” and that’s exactly what it was. Host Renee Montagne said the speech “has the coal industry and its supporters worried.” Then listeners heard from two Kentucky lawmakers–staunch industry supporters–and a vice president from an industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. There was room for another voice at the end–Vicki Arroyo of the Georgetown Climate Center.
So if you’re worried about how the coal industry feels about Obama’s climate plans, or how anti-equality crowd feels after they lose in court, NPR‘s got you covered.
That sign in the accompanying photo is rather ironic
Considering the tune I can’t get out of my head after reading this.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rollingstones/sympathyforthedevil.html
I look forward to NPR’s remedial coverage of Adolph Hitler — every time he’s mentioned, it’s negatively. Surely Nazis, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and genocide supporters are correct in feeling that NPR does not fairly reflect their views. Why should human rights come into it?
P.S. to “cultural conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage”: you are not obliged to marry a same-sex partner, nor prohibited from marrying an opposite-sex partner. Y’r welcome.
How would they cover the fugitive slave act or the lack of compensation for lost property? Would they mention the “40 acres and a mule” which never happened? Perhaps it would be like current coverage of fracking without mentioning “mandatory consolidation” or limited potable water resources. I know. Many people don’t use water and would not approach amniotic fluid, unless perhaps it was bottled and well positioned.
The mainstream press in this nation is becoming less and less about broadcasting the news and providing analysis and more about allowing the rich and powerful to voice their opinions. Find a Sunday in the last 4 years where McCain or one of his sock puppets haven’t been on at least one show spouting their idiotic talking points. Fox News took “fair and balanced” and made that the joke of the century. Whistleblowers are attacked more than the lies/corruption/cover ups they expose. And outlets like CNN allow religious nuts to spout their hatred. News has become less and less about the fourth estate.
NPR=Notoriously Putrid Reporting
I have desired fundamental changes to the US for my entire life and my views have never been fairly represented in the media… Can I get an NPR story to cover my plight?
I think the way NPR gets to their position is by giving the Liberal line the last word. Not that I think this is a useful strategy, not that I think NPR does real reporting. I really don’t object to opposing voices, it’s their ability to talk in terms given by the powerful to the exclusion on those who feel the entire enterprise lacks legitimacy.
“Cultural conservative” is a NPR euphemism for a mean spirited religious bigot?
I’ve always said if the president announced we needed to exterminate one out of every three citizens, NPR would dutifully consider both sides of this issue. Journalism has been sacrificed at the altar of false balance. And, as has been pointed out, the “other side” is often the corporate response, so that a small number of profit-interested individuals are “balanced” against the entire rest of the population or the continued existence of life on earth. Two rules everyone needs to understand: (1) there’s no such thing as objectivity and (2) false balance has killed journalism. So called “advocacy” journalism is the worst nightmare of the establishment, because it takes a transparent point of view and enables people to see the world clearly. Let’s have a host of of advocacy outlets (yes–all different sides!) and rouse people from their NPR hypnosis.
This article assumes that everyone who is against gay marriage is an “anti-equality bigot.” Well, that includes approximately half the country. And a substantial number of people even in some “progressive” European countries. Until about a year ago, the president of the U.S. was also what the writer of this article would consider an “anti-equality bigot.”
Apparently the writer feels that anyone who disagrees with him is not only wrong, but a bigot. He doesn’t seem to recognize that other people can have legitimate differences.
(For the record, I’m OK with gay marriage, though I would have preferred if local governments just got out of the “marriage” business altogether, and done what some other countries have done: recognize domestic partnerships for couple of any sexual orientation, with the same rights and benefits, but not giving it the heavy emotional and historical baggage of calling it “marriage.”)
“It is ironic–and revealing–that this group’s feelings of being marginalized are given so much attention.” What attention? One piece on one NPR show?
The rulings received coverage on the front page of nearly every major paper in the country, the lead on cable and broadcast news, the lead on NPR, etc. It would be helpful if you’d use some facts when making an argument.
I will accept the uproar by what I am going to say but here it is.Marriage is unconstitutional.Always has been.It is a religious state of being co opted as a successful model for society by the government.I hybrid that never fit the separation of church and state.Moving forward all unions should be SCU’s(state civil unions).If you want to be married go to a church…but in all government files it will be listed as a SCU.Just as communion,baptism,Bat mitzvha has no place …so shall marriage.Equlibrium restored to the constitution without the need of religious overtones.And all SCU’s should carry the same legal weight.
As far as destroying the coal industry…The president is a slack jawed moron.At a time when every cent counts ,the nit wit wants to eliminate 36% of our energy production and demolish a state(W virginia).I am not surprised he scored so low on his SATs or on his IQ test or on his College records.He is a dumb dumb dummy
That’s NPR for you. No concept of intellectual integrity.
NPR has drunk the Kool-Aid. They’re a journalistic joke, like most of their “colleagues”.
@ D. Scott – You are correct. Anyone against same-sex marriage IS an anti-equality bigot. They just don’t realize it. I don’t think Obama was ever personally agianst gay marriage, I’ll but he just spoke out against it as a political maneuver. He is a politician, after all, and politicians aren’t afraid to throw anyone – or any millions of ones – under the bus for their own political gain.
Being against gay marriage is bigotry, plain and simple. Does this mean everyone agains gay marriage is a hatefull, frothing-at-the-mouth bigot? Not at all. It’s just that they’ve been brainwashed all their lives to believe it’s immoral, though morality actually plays no part in marriage from a secular perspective, which is what state-sanctioned marriage is SUPPOSED to be about. They’ve been brainwashed to forget about the separation of church and state, a hallmark which makes the United States great but which zealots and those who would exploit them for money and power would like to see ripped from the U.S. Constitution.
Most people who are against gay marriage are usually flag-waving “patriots” who say it’s not an American value, yet most of them are woefully ignorant of what, legally, being an American is all about.
The rulings received coverage on the front page of nearly every major paper in the country, the lead on cable and broadcast news, the lead on NPR, etc. It would be helpful if you’d use some facts when making an argument. – robert
As did ever “Foaming at the mouth, spittle Spewing bigot” who had a spit to spittle, and everyone of them, and the article made a point about ‘how the religious’ people were being made into Victims because they could opposed, denigrate and belittle someone else.
Maybe you should try “expanding” your news coverage ,then you too could have some “facts” and would be spewing nonsense.
Frank I agree with a lot of what you wrote in the sense that the government has co-opted a hybrid- state and religious joining at the hips.And that is unconstitutional.
Next we move on to what is legal.There are at this time many,how should we call it …..differing forms of what many special interest groups want to lobby as “legal”.From the way out there man boy love association, tied to the age restrictions that they first want overturned.To the not so out there plain old biggamist’s.At this time there are many court cases that as we have less and less restrictions will be heard with more and more support.The day may come when a gay activist will be shouting down someone with a completely different idea of what love is or should be.And so it goes.In the end….What law is really worth keeping anyway- right?
What tires me so much is when I hear how NPR and PBS are so liberal. They sure as hell never have been in my lifetime, and I’m 57.