Kiss kiss bang bang

The bias of the reporter is blatant if not surprising: “marriage equality” is the campaign phrase for one side.

I would love to know what percentage of Americans think the Mormon church rocks for standing up for traditional marriage versus what percentage think less of them

I’d like to know what % of Americans have any different opinion than they had before — the left hated Mormons beforehand because they tended to send Reaganite Republicans to Washington DC.

Dear JD:

You don’t seem to grok the concept of “balance” in a news story. Whether or not you agree with LDS beliefs, Mollie points out there are intersections between religious beliefs and civil policies. If you’re doing a story about the involvement of religious people in policy debates, then any capable reporter should mention what the religion has to do with the policy.

This is GR principle #1: if you’re writing about religion, know something about it. It’s hard to see how you can be a GR reader and not get this point.

Well written article Mollie. Thanks for pointing out this agenda-driven “editorial” which has received far too much attention already. You are an objective journalist, keep at it!

Just a note: halfway through the piece, Jennifer Dobner’s name changes from “Dobner” to “Dobran.” Maybe something to fix.

JD,

First of all, it is becoming quite obvious that ‘civil rights’ in the area of same sex marriage have a direct bearing on civil rights having to do with the free exercise of religion. That is a point that has been acknowledged by partisans on both sides of the debate.

Second, the historical relationship between the civil rights movement and the churches, particularly the black church in America, is deep and well-documented (indeed probably deeper than documented). You cannot deny that unless you think the ‘Reverend’ part in ‘Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’ is just decoration.

Those are merely two of the obvious ways that civil rights and religion are and have been related in this country: one is a matter of basic logic where irreconcilable rights are asserted, and it is being worked out as we speak in public debate and in the courts. The other is historical. Neither is a matter of mere opinion or subjective preference. The assertion by the young grad student that civil rights and religion have nothing to do with each other is plainly idiotic; at the very least, it should bear the burden of proof for anyone not living in a vacuum. To ask that a reporter acknowledge this when deciding to quote such a simple-minded remark is not to advocate a conservative political and religious ideology; it is simply to implore for honest and minimally intelligent reporting. Why do you object to that?

Mollie, the issues you outlined in this story can sadly enough be easily found in all sorts of stories including political ones which the media should at least “get”. For example, I read mainstream stories about how the American people had turned against health care reform because a few hundred people had showed up to shout down and disrupt meetings held by Senators and Members of Congress.

I really wish there were a “Consumer Reports” for the media so I could read rankings of which reporters (and editors) did the best job of covering which kind of stories. At least by reading reviews here I’ve learned the names of a few religious reporters who typically do a good job.

JD wrote:

If Mollie had said “is not balanced out by anyone pointing out the various and sundry ways in which they believe civil rights have to do with religious principles”, I would have agreed, fully. Stating it as an opinion that civil rights depend on religion is fine; stating it as a fact is not. You should be a least as careful as the people you want to criticize.

JD, Mollie did not write that civil rights “depend on religion,” but “have to do with religious principles,” which is appropriately vague. My vote is that care has been taken.

Well, if the polyamorists get their campaign in gear, the polygamous episodes in Mormon history will be appealed to as examples of civil oppression, so I rather imagine the same reporter(s) who are bashing them over Proposition 8 will be using them as prophetic forerunners on broadening the definition of marriage.

And the next time I post I’ll PROOFREAD more carefully!

Another chapter in a story that has been unfolding for at least five years now:

Professionalism at the Associated Press in Free Fall.

After seeing the headline about how the LDS’s “image” was suffering for their Prop 8 stance, I didn’t even bother reading the article – you could literally see it coming. Thanks for the rundown, which confirmed my suspicions.

The original article apparently assumes that the Mormon church is just like the state legislature–their job is to represent us and if we don’t like them, we vote them out. But that is not true of any religion. What church out there decides to change its core beliefs simply because church outsiders disagree with them? We have all sorts of churches in the United States. If you don’t like any of them, you are free to start your own. But don’t expect them to change their doctrines to suit your tastes. What if the Mormon church suddenly decided to embrace gay marriage, would the entire gay community suddenly decide to become Mormons? Of course not. So why would the Mormon church try to change core beliefs in order to please them?

Michael – That religion and civil law have historically been entangled is as undeniable as it is irrelevant. The issue raised by the student quote – somewhat inarticulately I admit – is clearly about OUGHT, not IS. Not history, but ideology and political philosophy. SHOULD sectarian doctrine determine public law ? SHOULD all laws have to be justified in non-religious terms ?

The American mainstream view, and not just of the left, is one of public neutrality. Only a relatively small number of theocons dissent. Indeed, the Prop 8 campaign themselves chose to phrase their case in terms of generic policy, not doctrine (Perhaps not fooling everyone about the true motives of at least some, but still the public face shunned overt appeals to religious principles).

The proper balancing statement would not have been the highly ideological contention that civil rights depend on or derive from or owe anything to religious principles, but precisely the opposite – that the Prop 8 campaign was not, in its own mind, arguing from religious principles, but concern about general welfare.

Mollie,

You state that “All comments not focused on journalism will be deleted.” Not a great service to your readership, but, your post, your rules. So, I’ll do my best to focus my comment on the “journalism” aspect.

First, it’s important to note that I am the creator and co-founder of The Great Nationwide Kiss-In.

While your focus seems to be not on the facts of The Great Nationwide Kiss-In, but on Jennifer Dobner’s credibility, I think it only fair for your readers to know that, contrary to your “I mean, I’ve thrown house parties with more people than that” comment, The Great Nationwide Kiss-In was an event held in 60 cities, across more than 30 states, plus Canada, and went as far as the US territory of Saipan. All told, over 4500 people joined us. I don’t know you but I’m pretty sure few folks have held house parties that large!

While I’m not quoted in the Dobner piece, I was interviewed by Ms. Dobner. I will attest that her questions were credible and during the interview she did not prod me or suggest that she had any agenda or angle or point-of-view.

It’s unfortunate that, since you are looking at this from a journalistic standpoint, it would appear you didn’t do much, if any, research yourself. In service to your readers, let me set the record straight:

The Great Nationwide Kiss-In was created in response to several incidents of harassment, detention, and even arrest of same-sex couples after they kissed in public. It was not a protest, but a celebration. And, it’s important to note that we specifically did not allow any Kiss-Ins to be held on or near any house of worship, despite the calls of many of our members to do so.

Our goal was to show gay and straight couples standing together, kissing their loved ones. Simple. And effective. Gay or straight, either relationship is equal, as are all people under the law. And yet, there are too many incidents of arrest, or harassment, of same-sex couples who, like the couple in Salt Lake City, simply stopped for a moment to share a simple kiss. No one should be arrested for that.

The Dobner piece was fair and accurate and well-researched.

Mollie, you asked how our perceptions of Mormons changed because of their Prop 8 support. I for one have found myself to be far more sympathetic toward them as individuals and a church having to hold up under intense backlash from the BGLT community, when the church used standard political means in their advocacy for Prop 8. And while I have seen story after story about these protests (i.e., “celebrations”) by the BLGT forces, I have yet to see one article about what it means to be a “persecuted church” in America in 2009. I am still trying to figure out why, according to the BLGT community and some of their media friends, it is acceptable for virtually any opinion-bearing group in this country to seek to influence public policy, except for those groups whose opinions have a religious basis. This country would not have been founded, nor its Constitution drafted, had we not allowed for the overwhelming influence of opinion birthed in Scripture, religion and faith.

Mr. Badash wrote:

The Great Nationwide Kiss-In was an event held in 60 cities, across more than 30 states, plus Canada, and went as far as the US territory of Saipan. All told, over 4500 people joined us. I don’t know you but I’m pretty sure few folks have held house parties that large!

First, if the numbers you cite are correct, they aren’t in the news story. I’m not disparaging your truthfulness, but for this event, you’re an advocate, not a disinterested reporter of fact, and Dobner needs to include more specifics about the number of people involved from less interested sources, especially if she wants to spin the story as damaging the public image of the Mormons.

Second, there’s the issue of proportion. 4500 people appears to be a substantial number, until you consider the context of the story and imputed weight the reporter gives to the story. Compare the number of “kiss-in” participants to the number of Latter Day Saints who attended worship services last Sunday, and you’ll understand Mollie’s point. When you include the whole population of the U.S. and territories, even as far away from Saipan, 4500 is not a lot of people, and certainly not enough to make general claims about the LDS image being “tarnished” among the broader public. I’ll bet that the Latter Day Saints could generate the same or greater participation to protest your “celebration”; should we then be treated to a story about how the public image of the gay activist community has been tarnished?

The Dobner piece was fair and accurate and well-researched.

Considering your viewpoint, it’s completely unremarkable that you would say as much. Meanwhile, you’ve done little to discredit the substance of Mollie’s criticism of Dobner’s story– its use of one side’s rhetoric in reporting on contentious social issue; its lack of proportion; and its making general claims about the public image of the Latter Day Saints based on flimsy, ambiguous evidence.

I yawned when Ms. Dobner’s piece appeared, because it so perfectly met my expectations of her. You found the perfect one-word summary: “hacktastic!”

Her “reporting” has consistently betrayed an anti-Mormon editorial slant, and she seems to think she has a patent on the unattributed “insider” observation.

Recently she wrote that she was moving from the Salt Lake City area because of a change in her husband’s employment: that piece almost seemed inspired by one of Richard Nixon’s farewells.

I had hoped in vain that we wouldn’t have Ms. Dobner to kick us around anymore.

I noticed one glaring omission in both pieces — the nature of the gay “kiss” on Mormon Church property. It wasn’t just a kiss on the cheek.

. . . these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called.

Source: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-record-on-plaza-incident

If a heterosexual couple had been doing this kind of “kissing,” they, too, would have been asked to leave. The Plaza where the original kissing incident took place is directly adjacent to the Salt Lake Temple — a place that is considered sacred by Mormons. Any lewd behavior by any person would be inappropriate there. The Plaza is church property. It’s a matter of courtesy and respect to behave well on someone else’s religious property. I believe this point should have also been made in Mollie’s piece which was otherwise dead-on! Thanks for evaluating the hackastic AP report.

Jeff,
I think Dobner was justified in both of those uses. The LDS’ newsroom uses the term “Mormons” right in today’s headline. Second, the LDS’ own page on race relations refers to “members of African descent” and quotes own of its own members as saying in 1978, “They’ve just announced blacks can get the priesthood!”

If the official communications of the LDS church uses these terms, I think an AP reporter can, too.

I agree. Neither of the issues Jeff brought up particularly bugged me, as a Mormon, about Dobner’s piece.

How blind these gay activists are. 70% of Californians voted against gay marraige and for traditional marraige. Mormons only make up 10% of Californians. Duuhh. Even liberal California can see that marraige is defined as man and wife. Any thing else is something else but not marraige. Gay marraige has been incorrect historically, biologically, scientifically, and of course scripturally. Its only correct in the minds of 15% or so. Even if 80% thought it was ok, it would still be wrong. I’m a lover not a hater and we can see who the real haters are in this.

Here’s what David B. stated in a comment: “Our goal was to show gay and straight couples standing together, kissing their loved ones. Simple. And effective. Gay or straight, either relationship is equal, as are all people under the law. And yet, there are too many incidents of arrest, or harassment, of same-sex couples who, like the couple in Salt Lake City, simply stopped for a moment to share a simple kiss. No one should be arrested for that.”

However, as Seth and JL pointed out, the couple was arrested because they were drunk, belligerent, groping each other, and making out. It never was just a simple peck on a cheek. If that had been the case, the security guard probably would not have batted an eye (well, maybe batted an eye but nothing would have been done). The couple was arrested for the above behaviors but mainly because they refused to leave private property when asked.

Those are all things the AP article author conveniently did not mention. Her writing was biased to an extreme. I kept expecting her to present the other side (other than her cursory quote from a church spokesperson) but she never did. You can be biased and have a point to make as a journalist but you need to research and present more than one side. That article was a prime example of shoddy journalism, especially for the Associated Press.

Jared makes a good point.

If I go into my local Wal Mart today and sit with my wife or girlfriend on the bench next to the cash registers and start groping her, french-kissing her, and making a scene…

You know what’s going to happen.

I’m going to be asked by management to leave. If I start swearing at the management and aggressively telling them where to shove it, the police are likely going to be called to escort me off the premises and I might get charges pressed for trespassing.

And does anyone think this is news?

Excellent article and good remarks and rebuttals. I, too,get very tired of such negative bias. Personally, I was grossed out by the lewdness and poor taste by the gay couple and thought it reflected very badly on the lesbian community at large to have celebrated it. My opinion would have been the same had they been a heterosexual couple.

I agree with Mollie that hard numbers would have been much more interesting and less like a bash job.

Did anyone look at gate in the picture at the top of this article? The protesters couldn’t have been too peaceful if they defaced private property. Also, I’d like to see the video of the kiss (too bad no one can find it). Claude, can you at least please direct me to the source (if there is such a thing) that supports your comment about the scene being deleted from the tape?

Re Interested’s comment about the picture at the top of the article. That is not a picture from Salt Lake City. It is not a picture of the Kiss In. Pretty misleading, I would say.

The Dave who wrote #52 is some other Dave.

This response to the AP hack piece is quite good. It was I believe this same hack piece that claimed Thomas S. Monson exhibited fatigue from that fight in his April conference talk (except among other things, they ignored he gave four talks, and could only quote one line). The problem is that they could quote more clear references to the fight from President Hinckley, except they were in 2000 after Proposition 22, since President Hinckley died in 2008. The fact of the matter is that as an LDS missionary in Las Vegas in 2000-2002 I had people stop meeting with us due to the Church’s position on same gender marriage (or maybe their general dislike of our non-tolerance of homosexual actions) so this notion that the “image” of the Church was tarnished by Proposition 8 is based on false assumptions.
In 2006 the First Presidency sent out a letter to members in all congregations in the United States (much broader than the Prop 8 letter, which was only read in California congregations) asking members to write to their senators expressing their views on the admendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The ACLU in response to the 2002 Nebraska Marriage Admendment tried to argue in court the fact that the majority of people who gathered signatures to get the measure on the ballot were LDS made it somehow an un-acceptable admendment. Then there was the Church’s support of Proposition 2 in Nevada.
The fact of the matter is that when Thomas S. Monson became president of the Church he was asked how the Church would treat members of the Church who supported allowing same-gender marriages, with the clear understanding embedded in this question at the news conference that the Church opposed same-gender marriage.
Anyone who claims that they left the Church because of Proposition 8 can not have been to sacrament meeting that often in the last decade, and they also clearly missed out on President Hinckley’s 2003 Christimas Devotional message which was a bold denunciation of the sins of sodom and the forcing of same-gender marriage upon Massachusetts by members of the state’s supreme court.