The other day I noted the one-sided story in the Los Angeles Times about a likable lesbian couple who live in an area that voted in support of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a heterosexual union.
Well, the Times finally discovered that some people who live in California actually voted for Proposition 8. It was apparently difficult to find this bizarre group that comprises a majority of the electorate. Anyway, the Times published a story about the views of these Prop. 8 supporters and the difference is shocking. In the first story, the anti-Prop. 8 couple are portrayed as real and complex people with an interesting history and interesting ideas. They are real, live, sympathetic characters in a dramatic story.
The second story about proponents of Proposition 8 is a dry piece that features five Orange County supporters of traditional marriage. They are Larry Black, 66; Mike Mooney, 60; Richard “Mac” McConnell, 82; Yvonne Lee, 64; and Bob Murphy, 64. Do you notice anything interesting about these five individuals? Four folks in their 60s and one in his 80s? Why were these the five people chosen for the story? Presumably this story was assigned because Orange County is one of the counties that was more likely to vote yes on Prop. 8 than the state average. But Orange County is diverse age-wise, with 27 percent under the age of 18, 9 percent from 18 to 24, 33 percent from 25 to 44, 21 percent from 45 to 64, and 10 percent 65 years of age or older. This story doesn’t reflect that diversity at all.
Whereas the first story explored the lives of the lesbian couple in detail, here’s the perplexing bit we get about one of the OC residents:
Some supporters of the ban said they were trying to be as tolerant as they could, and took umbrage with the allegation, made repeatedly at protests, that they were homophobes.
Yvonne Lee, 64, playing with her grandchildren at the beach playground, said she has family members who are gay whom she would never want to hurt.
But as an evangelical Christian, she said she knows the “correct forces of nature.” She noted that this is the second time Californians have voted to ban gay marriage, referring to Proposition 22 in 2000, which was overturned in May by the state Supreme Court.
“They lost,” she said. “Accept it.”
She too feared the ever-invoked slippery slope.
“What are people going to be asking for next?” she asked.
Okay, Los Angeles Times. Simmer down. Remove the dismissive qualifier of “ever-invoked.” There is no need to play it that way.
The article ends with a vignette involving a bike shop owner who is also described as a “pastor.” Here — here! — is where a qualifier would be helpful. Not with the “ever-invoked’ line. But with a simple statement of what kind of pastor the bike shop owner is. Argh.
Anyway, here’s how the article ends:
But he and a friend who met for lunch shrugged about the court challenges, as if the measure’s overturning were inevitable.
“What am I going to do?” asked his friend, who did not want to give his name. “Move to Canada,” which actually allows same-sex marriage.
That last line is a disaster. Was the friend joking? Was he making an official declaration of his intentions? Was it rhetorical? This is why God invented punctuation, so we could have some clarity. And while reporters can add some narration to clarify, this reporter’s, um, ever-snippy little statements, such as the one that ends the piece, don’t help.
 | Posted at 1:35 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
November 13, 2008, at 2:55 pm
“She too feared the ever-invoked slippery slope.”
I, too, was once snarky and superior about that slippery slope. Until I realized that every danged one of those evil inclines I was warned about in my youth really was a downhill run that would do the Winter Olympics proud.
November 13, 2008, at 3:26 pm
You’re right. Terrible article. But don’t get upset just because all the people profiled were older.
Orange County may be diverse age-wise, but that doesn’t mean that support for Prop 8 was proportionally distributed among age demogs. Do you really think that the under-45 set supported Prop 8 at the same level as the over-45 set?
Yeah, the OC supported Prop 8. But my guess is that rates of opposition to Prop 8 among the 69% of OC residents under 45 is drastically below rates of opposition among the 31% of OC residents older than 45.
November 13, 2008, at 4:00 pm
Or perhaps the difficulty was in finding pro-8 OC residents under 60 who were willing to admit it…
November 13, 2008, at 4:40 pm
Maybe you’re right, Dave. There’s not a chance this 32-year-old would let my name get published in the media as a Prop. 8 supporter given the lunacy we’ve seen since the election. Although “willing” isn’t quite the right word—I prefer “discretion” over “fear” although I do have a family to think about.
November 13, 2008, at 5:38 pm
http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=f78a0a5d-afde-4f6b-90f6-5c21123a7f98
The above article, from a local Catholic news site (California Catholic Daily), gives an overview of the various sorts of ugly incidents that have occurred in the course of the Prop 8 protests. It depicts a reality to which the LA Times (which I read on a daily basis) is largely blind.
November 13, 2008, at 5:40 pm
I imagine that Brian is one of many under-45 Prop 8 supporters who recognize the incredible bias of the LA Times and are unlikely to agree to an interview with that esteemed publication.
November 13, 2008, at 8:21 pm
The proposition 8 controversy about the Mormon Church is continuing. I noticed this story today Complaint: LDS Church underreported Prop 8 role so we’ll have to wait to see if the allegations about the Mormon Church’s involvement are proven or not.
November 13, 2008, at 10:07 pm
the Mormon Church’s involvement
Not specific to Jerry’s comment, but I always wonder what this sort of phrase means. In one sense, any Mormon who sent money involved “the Mormon Church”. If one were a Mormon bishop and sent money, would that be “the Mormon Church”? Bp. Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop who endorsed Barak Obama: he said he was acting as an individual, but to what degree did he “involve” the Episcopal Church?
Of course, we hear this sort of phrase all the time with respect to Catholicism. You can fairly hear the echo effects whenever some reporter refers to THE CATHOLIC Church. It often seems that every good thing is attributed to individuals, but bad things are the fault of the big bad institution. As a Catholic, I hear this sort of thing: perhaps Mormons are sensitive to manipulation of individual vs. corporate identities in this particular instance.
November 13, 2008, at 11:48 pm
Generally speaking, I agree with the gist of your post, Mollie. But Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com— a very good, accurate, and fair statistical polling analysis site— has a post on why age really was the determining factor in the California election, more than anything else:
November 13, 2008, at 11:49 pm
Oops, here’s the link:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
November 14, 2008, at 8:00 am
Tyson, exit polls often are horribly inaccurate, in part because many choose not to participate in them.
November 14, 2008, at 11:02 am
Chris - Exit polls may be somewhat inaccurate, but I’ll believe inaccurate data over wildly inaccurate anecdotes anyday.
Interesting that the powers that be chose to delete the comment about bankrollers of GR and BN also bankrolling Prop 8 in stead of clarifying the financial relationships…
November 14, 2008, at 11:07 am
Apologies, I was looking at the wrong posts re: second comment.
November 14, 2008, at 11:55 am
FW Ken (#8), from what I’ve heard fourth-hand, the LDS church encouraged members to support Prop 8 financially. That, if true, constitutes involvement. Which, I hasten to add, would be perfectly legal for an issue election, and could not be gainsaid morally as long as (thanks to the US Supreme Court) money is speech.
November 14, 2008, at 3:28 pm
Dave -
You illustrated my point: who is “the LDS Church” apart from it’s members? What does it mean that we speak of corporate entities vs. individuals.
Actually, I don’t care about the LDS (whatever and whoever it is) being involved in the political struggle. My question is about how we talk about communities.
November 14, 2008, at 9:06 pm
Hmmm… you make a good point, Chris. In fact, I’ve heard Nate Silver himself say that exit polls are wildly inaccurate, and we should pretty much just ignore them. On further examination, quite a few of the commenters on his post pointed out the same thing. I’m going to be thinking a little more about what he says on his site now.
November 15, 2008, at 12:02 pm
Not to mention that anyone who holds a position working in the Curia, at any level or capacity, becomes “the Vatican” when quoted in the MSM.
November 15, 2008, at 1:32 pm
How “involved” was the Unitarian Universalist Church in the “No” campaign? How about the United Church of Christ? What about the aforementioned Episcopalians?
Dare we expect balance here? Um, not likely.
And of course, if this had been voted down, nary a peep would be heard from the MSM about these Left-leaning churches about THEIR involvement, and then in a self-congratulatory way.
November 15, 2008, at 3:39 pm
FW Ken asks:
As should have been obvious, in the context in which I used the phrase I meant religious leaders of the church. In the future I’ll try to be a bit less subtle.
Stephen A. asks:
Both leadership and activist laity were involved in promoting a “No” vote. As I said earlier regarding the LDS church, Prop 8 was an issue, not a candidate, and churches are free to weigh in on issues.
November 15, 2008, at 10:01 pm
Ok, let’s try again.
Dave,
Subtlety isn’t the issue. Your reply to Stephen is the kind of explication I am talking about: “both leadership and activist laity” is more helpful than referring to a religious community when you mean the leadership.
Again, my musing is about how we talk about faith communities, which are more than, though not other than, “institutional religion”.
November 16, 2008, at 10:22 am
Fair enough, Dave, and very true.
So whenever we see a news story about how “involved” the LDS Church has been in this campaign, we should see a notation about how active and involved the UU denomination has been, too, right? Fair is fair.
November 16, 2008, at 2:51 pm
Stephen A. writes:
I would not in the least object to that. I’m proud of the involvement of UUs, and I think the publicity would increase awareness that this isn’t a subject in which all the religious people are lined up on one side and everyone on the other side is irreligious. (I’ve seen efforts by the right to frame discussions of various issues that way.)
However, I’m not holding my breath. Big bucks are big news, and big protests are big news, so I expect the Mormons to continue to get more ink and electrons than the UUs.