Apparently I wasn’t the only Washington Post reader who thought the paper’s coverage of same-sex marriage last week was a bit lopsided. I noticed one of the reader questions posed in an on-line chat to the Post’s Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli mentioned it as well:
Alexandria, VA: In the week after gay marriage was legal, the Post devoted 543 column inches to gay issues. Those stories quoted gay marriage advocates 67 times compared to opponents just 6 times. How can you defend how the Post has handled this story, especially since for all your push for home rule, this decision never even went to the voters who likely would have rejected it.
Marcus Brauchli: The polls don’t necessarily support your view that gay marriage would have been rejected by voters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/06/AR2010020602300.html). But, in any case, the issue of gay marriage crosses a lot of important terrain—civil liberties, religion, local economics, national politics and, yes, home rule. I don’t know how you’re counting quotes. We quoted many people who were able to marry because of the legal change; it’s hard to see how you’d cover a change of this magnitude without talking to the people most affected by the change. I can assure you, though, that we were just as intent on reflecting the views of those who opposed the ideas as we were those who favored it.
Yikes! One gets the idea that the editor has trouble even considering how coverage could be improved.
But in the non-stop and over-the-top coverage of the new law, here’s a Washington Post story about the District’s new same-sex marriage law that is well written and does a nice job of showing how groups of people don’t always think exactly the same about a given issue. Written by Tara Bahrampour and Monica Hesse, it ran on the front page of the local news section:
On the first day same-sex weddings were held in the District, Dustin Rhodes could barely stomach the outpouring of matrimonial enthusiasm: the joyful couples exchanging vows in front of family, friends and colleagues, with all the flowers, cake and flash photography that come with the show.
“It’s so personally revolting to me,” said Rhodes, 36, who has been in a committed relationship with a man for 13 years.
“I’d rather see marriage abolished than see me married,” he said as he ate lunch in a Columbia Heights cafe with his partner, Bray Creech. “The materialism of it, what I perceive as kind of a narcissism. Like all the money and decoration… . I have no interest in having a performance, which to me is what weddings are.”
Creech, 33, got a faraway look on his face. “I would do it,” he said, with a little smile of resignation that comes with years of losing the same argument. “You get all those gifts; that would be so nice. I have no problem with the performance part of it.”
Many same-sex couples who rushed to make history this week by marrying in the District cited reasons such as spousal benefits, inheritance and hospital visitation rights, and greater societal legitimacy. But for some couples, the option to legally marry has raised a thorny issue — to wed or not — that had long remained safely in the realm of the hypothetical. For those who can’t agree on whether to tie the knot, the new horizons have stirred up old conflicts.
The reporters talk to a number of individuals who have conflicted feelings about whether to marry their same-sex partner. A lesbian from Maryland discussed how getting married wasn’t an option, then it became an option for those who could travel to Denmark, then for those who could get to Vermont. Now that the option is even closer, she’s giving it more thought.
The article introduces us to couples who aren’t ready to make a marriage commitment, to those who won’t marry if other same-sex couples in the country can’t, and to those who want federal benefits included in the deal. Others oppose the idea of marriage as an institution.
One of the things that annoys me about media coverage in general is an inability to treat members of minority groups as individuals who might have views that are different from others in the group. So I am really glad to see the Post digging down here. I have gay friends who plan to wed and I have gay friends who say that they think marriage is a hetero-normative institution that they abhor. That’s because each individual person is allowed to have different ideas about marriage. This should not be shocking anymore than it is shocking that straight individuals have different ideas about marriage. This article covers a wide variety of perspectives and reasons for and against couples deciding to marry.
But I was hoping for even more diversity. What about gay individuals who won’t marry for religious reasons? They’re nowhere to be found in this article. I was really surprised that we didn’t see even a cursory discussion of religion, particularly because the article spends a bit of time discussing the importance of “social approval” for same-sex relationships. For some people, what the state sanctions is secondary in their decision making to what the church sanctions. Are there any gay folks in the District whose decisions on marriage are unchanged by the legal change because they care more about church teachings? I don’t know, but it would have been interesting to find out.
Still, a good piece with an interesting angle.
 | Posted at 11:02 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
March 17, 2010, at 11:23 am
Ironically the diversity of views in the gay community has been found in the comics for years. “Dykes To Watch Out For” by Alison Bechtel, running in the gay media, has explored these issues since its inception, and it’s incredibly funny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 11:34 am
Sorry if the Washington Post coverage didn’t delve into religious beliefs to your satisfaction. Perhaps it’s because religion is a personal matter, and that allowing Gay couples to marry has no effect on how churches and religious Gay people choose to conduct their lives.
To be honest, religion is absolutely irrelevant to the debate over marriage equality for Gay couples, since the only thing that a church can offer a couple is a ceremony. The 1,138 legal benefits, protections and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on married couples come from the federal government, NOT the church.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 17, 2010, at 1:35 pm
Chuck #2,
I’m curious about the “1,138 legal benefits” that “come from the federal government” you’re referring to, since marriage is a state matter, although recognized by the federal government.
Robert at bioethike.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 1:58 pm
Chuck, religion may be a personal matter but nonetheless it’s often in the news, and this journalism board is devoted to competent coverage thereof. Religion often affects the actions of people, gay and straight, and marriage is saturated in religion (even the choice to have a justice of the peace is a religious choice) with churches often opposing marriage equity for religious reasons. So the question is appropriate.
I write btw as a dedicated supporter of marriage equity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 2:05 pm
Wikipedia: News is the communication of information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience.
The Washington Post is reporting the news. The news that week was that gay couples were able to get legally married in Washington, D.C. Just because some people disagree with it doesn’t make their disagreement newsworthy in that context.
The fact that even some gay people oppose marriage, and were quoted in a story, misrepresents the context. Those individuals are presumably not trying to prevent other gay people from choosing to get married. The story merely represented two views from the same affected population, all of whom have new access to a civil institution - if or when they choose.
E.g., lots of straight people do not wish to get married, and/or oppose the institution of marriage - for themselves. That’s very different from opposing same-sex marriage, or anyone else’s right to marry.
There are two separate issues/news items here - 1) A group of people who previously didn’t have access to civil marriage now do have access. They are celebrating. It’s a big deal because it’s been a widely publicized political and cultural battle.
2) A group of people oppose another group’s access to civil marriage, and are battling it in the courts, states, and communities.
The WaPo has done plenty of reporting on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. The stories in question portrayed the scene for what it was - celebratory, excited, and happy same-sex couples grateful for the opportunity to participate in a civil institution that was previously not accessible to them.
That is not media bias.
If a bunch of same-sex marriage opponents were sitting at home grumbling about it, that isn’t newsworthy. Sorry.
When my evening news reports a local event, I do not assume they endorse the event, or that they should quote every varying perspective about the event. There are many sides to every story, but sometimes the angle is only on one of them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 17, 2010, at 3:29 pm
You COULD frame it that way. Or you could say they oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. All Americans have the exact same access to civil marriage. What they don’t have is carte blanche to redefine marriage to include anything beyond one man and one woman.
Framing the issue in one of these ways without at least mentioning the other is an easy “tell” of media bias over the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
March 17, 2010, at 4:40 pm
DEAR ROBERT:
The 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities I mentioned are according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). These are just the federal benefits, many of them having to do with tax law and Social Security. There are some 400 additional benefits that are bestowed upon married couples at the state level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 5:08 pm
Keep comments on topic. All comments that are not focused on journalism will be deleted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 5:26 pm
Mollie asks:
FWIW I have been out for over 35 years. I have never met and never heard of any such people.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 17, 2010, at 6:46 pm
Robert:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
The federal government can and does confer a huge, overwhelming number of rights specifically to married couples - it simply, with the singular and unconstitutional (10th amendment) exception of DOMA, does not have the power to determine what a marriage actually is. It can recognize marriages, and confer rights and responsibilities on married couples - it’s just not (constitutionally) in the business of determining what marriages actually are. This is the secret, real reason why DOMA is not allowed - the federal government doesn’t actually have the right to define a marriage under any terms, because the constitution does not grant it this power. But beyond that, it can still use marriage as a way to portion out rights or whatever it wants to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 6:48 pm
“I’d rather see marriage abolished than see me married”
This speaks volumes. It’s not something they want, it’s what **they want no one to have**. Whole different story than the one reported, isn’t it? Not especially religious, just darn interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 6:49 pm
Oh, and Mollie - yes, those gay people do exist. They’re called republicans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 7:34 pm
Steve,
You are mistaken. Log Cabin Republicans has long been an advocate for marriage and, indeed, many members have taken advantage of the right to marry in places where it is legal.
Even GOPride, who broke from Log Cabin because they weren’t conservative enough, supports marriage.
Often gay Republicans are in long-term relationships and perhaps might on average even value monogamy, tradition, and family more than might a less conservative gay person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 7:43 pm
Mollie,
There is, of course, a need for balance in all reporting. For example, when reporting on a bill about a controversial environmental issue, you cover both those who favor and those who oppose.
But sometimes balance doesn’t make sense. When reporting who won the local football team, you don’t report the opinions of those who think baseball is better. When talking about a newly engaged couple you don’t interview their ex’s. When reporting a large lottery ticket, you don’t interview those who didn’t win.
It is appropriate to discuss the concerns of anti-gay activists in this story. But when discussing “how will this impact your life”, there isn’t much to tell from an anti-gay perspective… other than “it won’t really” or “it changes the culture” there’s nothing to report.
And “will this improve your bridal gown business” doesn’t exactly have two sides.
Balance, just for the sake of printing the views of those unhappy, isn’t good journalism. It’s foolishness couched as fairness.
And as for gay folk who oppose this legal change… well, you aren’t going to find many. And interviewing someone who opposes it (politically, not just for them) would actually be very bad journalism. It would give a sense of importance and credibility to an extremely rare viewpoint.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 8:15 pm
Mollie,
Over the years, the Washington Post has consistently editorialized in favor of marriage equality. That’s their editorial policy and they do a pretty good job of covering Bishop Harry Jackson, Mayor for life Marion Barry and others in and out of the District who oppose equal marriage rights. You may want to read Monica Hesse’s sympathetic article on Brian Brown, Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile. That article got Hess into a bit of hot water and the Post’s Ombudsman had to explain that Hesse is a journalist who channels the actors in her articles very well. To see the balance, at least with the Post, you have to read across articles.
As for balance within an article about the long awaited celebration of equal marriage in D.C., it may be best to find a Biblical parable. I find the parable of the wedding feast to be apt. The only thing that the king said about the one person who refused to don the wedding gown was:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 8:36 pm
Jonathan:
In other words, there is no need for the WPost to practice the basic tenets of American journalism? There is no other side of the story?
This happens to be the official view of gay and lesbian journalism association, or was at one time. Does anyone know the status of that statement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 9:41 pm
tmatt,
The linked Bahrampour, Hesse article was about views within the GLBT community. The reporters and editors chose the scope of the article and worked within that scope. I linked to the Brian Brown article to demonstrate that the Post applies the same rules to articles about people who oppose marriage equality. In that article there wasn’t much discussion of people who are negatively affected by Brian Brown and NOM. The article was about Brian Brown, not about the opposition to Brian Brown.
As others have stated, there isn’t any discernable community of gay or lesbian people who oppose marriage equality for religious reasons. There are endless stories of anti-gay politicians and religious figures who are gay and find themselves caught up in a sordid scandal. There are also “ex-gays”. The Washington City Paper went looking for them and couldn’t find any.
Please take the time to read the Brian Brown article. It demonstrates that the Post does report on the other side and does so objectively. Monica Hess and the Post editors told Brown’s story without out-of-scope “noise” from the other side.
I don’t know anything about the statement to which you refer. I’m sure you can find it. I’d bet a dollar to a dime that you are taking it out of context. My organization has a commenting policy on our blog that states:
The “other side” that believes we shouldn’t exist doesn’t get air time. Do you understand why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 9:47 pm
Jonathan,
That one piece on Brian Brown —- which disparaged all other same-sex marriage opponents while describing him as “sane” and “nice” — was denounced by the Wash Post’s own ombudsman as being unfair. Why? Not because his critics weren’t quoted but because the reporter called him “sane” and the ombudsman felt that this was debatable.
I’m not joking. And if you read GetReligion, you’ll see that we’ve critiqued dozens of Post stories about same-sex marriage — including that one. I think I wrote three or four posts on the Brian Brown profile and ensuing brouhaha — including one just last week.
However, I’m pretty sure that the folks who oppose changing marriage laws would be willing to trade that one Brian Brown article — as friendly as it was to him — for even 1/100th of the cheerleading coverage the Post has given to same-sex marriage proponents over the years.
It is the GetReligion position that there is no need for mainstream journalists to lose their ability to report the story fairly and replace that ability with blatant cheerleading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 17, 2010, at 10:57 pm
Mollie,
But the other old school anti-gays like Dr. James Dobson practice insane behavior. Have you read “Marriage Under Fire”? It’s full of crazy declarations about the motivations of people like me, and it is not true. I know because I know me better than Dobson does.
And have you read Brown’s writings? I subscribe to NOM’s email alerts. I read them. When the alerts use language like:
you get the inkling that you’re dealing with a political movement, not a religious movement and certainly not a moral movement. We have a good deal of experience with the Republican party right flank that uses the term “RINO” here in Loudoun and none of that experience is positive. Spend some time on our site. The term “conservative postmodernism” comes to mind.
The Post is reporting history. They’ve been doing it for a long time and have a pretty good grasp of the difference between the real story and the hisorical dead end. Marriage equality is the real story. That’s where the arc of history is bending. I’m sorry for you if your beef is with that arc of history and the underlying reality that is being reported by the Post. The journalistic style of the Post isn’t so much your issue as the content of the reporting. I can sympathize with your sense of loss. We lost a terrible anti-gay so-called “marriage” amendment referendum here in Virginia and that historical event was very painful. The difference is that the anti-gay amendments that you cheer are actually assaults against our families and the marriages that you jeer are assaults against your ability to assault our families.
This is my first visit to GetReligion. I haven’t read you’re earlier work. If I’m in unfriendly turf - where the bloggers believe that people like me “don’t or shouldn’t exist” - I should go away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 18, 2010, at 3:16 pm
Of course, allowing same-sex marriages doesn’t take away the ability of opposite-sex couples to marry, does it? In this case, ‘opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples’ means ‘opposing another group’s access to civil marriage’, doesn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 18, 2010, at 4:28 pm
So the Post should have cheered on eugenics, social darwinism, and racial supremacy back in those days, right? Seeing as that was the arc of history, until the world woke up to Hitler (Godwin’s law, sorry). I don’t speak for the folks at Get Religion, but I think they would say that the interests of the public are not served by a newspaper that simply tries to jump on every historical bandwagon that comes along. Rather, the public is best served by media that airs open and honest debate surrounding history-making events, so that well-informed readers can make up their own mind about where history should go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 19, 2010, at 11:22 am
Only if you accept the arguments that same-sex pairings are marriage in any sense of the word, which opponents (obviously) do not. The argument is one of defining what marriage means. Is it restricted to one person of each sex or no? If that’s decided, then should there be civil partnerships to handle any other arrangements? If so, what are the criteria for those? Multiple pairings? Lifelong intent? Intrafamilial relationships disallowed?
I think the whole conflict will ultimately be decided by word games and semantics, smoke and mirrors (at least in the short term) and will ultimately satisfy no one.
I’ve seen little balanced journalism on the issue. Most seem to cheerlead or at least take one side’s presuppositions for granted. I’m happy that this article, at least, doesn’t treat a diverse group as being of one mind on the issue, which is a common enough mistake in journalism and in human nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0