The Media is Not “Biased” Toward Gay Marriage. It is Promoting It.

Marriage is gay

So … what happened at the March for Marriage last week? 

If you know, you must have been there because the various news media enforced a near-total blackout on the event. 

Let’s think about that for a moment.

Gay marriage is what you might call a “big” story. The Supreme Court was hearing two cases that have the potential to upend 2,000 years of teaching, law and culture concerning the fundamental unit on which all of Western civilization is built. That makes it an important story. Public conversation about this issue is focused and combative. That makes it a ratings grabber. The March for Marriage was the “other” side of the argument finally getting its act together and stepping up to public protest, which made it a man bites dog story, providing a new twist to a story that had already been done to death. That makes it interesting.

So. We have a story that gives a new angle to an important topic, that draws widespread public interest at a time when public interest is already focused on the issue. Sounds like a win-win-win for the media. All they had to do was cover it.

Which they did not.

I repeat: What happened at the March for Marriage last week? I would not be surprised if most of the coverage of that event that you saw was right here on Public Catholic and other Christian blogs and web sites. You may have, as I did, had to go to the Facebook page sponsored by the March for Marriage organizers to get any news of the event.

This was the news story that wasn’t. Because the media is promoting gay marriage. They are hard-selling it. And this march ran counter to their true objectives, which appear to be not so much to inform the public as to propagandize the public. 

There are a number of reasons why public support for gay marriage appears to be reaching a tipping point in favor of it. The continuous, completely biased and often inaccurate media propaganda in favor of it is one of them.

From The World Tribune:

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Significant news came out of last Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media.

As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

Proponents of traditional marriage participate in the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. on March 26.  /Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become …

… The video excerpts are interesting, in that a self-proclaimed homosexual man, Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, was also shown opposing homosexual marriage …

… His speech at the March for Marriage included the admonition that the Supreme Court should “ignore the media’s relentless, manufactured urgency to institute same-sex marriage.”

That media campaign, as we revealed in a recent column, includes the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), funded by all of the major news organizations. Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show was the host of the March 21 New York fundraiser for the group 

… But the omissions and distortions don’t end there. On the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday night, host Brian Williams claimed that a majority of Americans now support homosexual marriage. But the Reuters Corporation recently released the results of a huge poll finding only 41 percent of America supports it.

The company tried to mask the results by highlighting majority support for benefits for “same-sex couples.” But the story about the poll notes in the fourth paragraph that only 41 percent of people say same-sex couples should be permitted to marry …

… Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented, “If 41% was all the support Reuters could scrounge up for same-sex ‘marriage,’ then you know they exhausted every avenue trying to push that number higher — and couldn’t.”

NBC News correspondent Kristen Dahlgren did a story on Tuesday’s Brian Williams newscast on “TV’s impact on the gay marriage debate” which totally ignored the role of NBC News, which like CBS News and Fox News, funds one side of the debate — the NLGJA. (Read more here.) 

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the Accuracy In Media Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

  • http://catholibertariandotcom.wordpress.com Teresa Rice

    Spot on post, Rebecca!! The major news outlets sure are in the tank for gay “marriage”. It is so obvious that I would classify the reporting on this as journalistic malpractice. God Bless.

  • Jordan

    It’s absolutely sad that you, as a Catholic, cannot accept that gay Catholics like myself just want to eventually have a legally recognized marital status.
    And cake.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Actually, given that argument, I find the whole concept of a “legally recognized marital status” to be highly discriminatory against single people, and thus in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

      So take your pick- either civil marriage is for raising children and to unite their mother and father, or civil marriage is worthless to anybody and needs to be abolished.

      • Geoffrey M

        Theodore,
        If you think that the only purpose and benefit to marriage is child rearing, I sincerely hope you are not married. You fundamentally and profoundly misunderstand the institution and the marital relationship. Myriad studies show that married people are healthier, happier, more fanincially stable, have fewer instances of disease and addiction, have sex more often…and the list goes on. The institution of marriage creates mutual dependence (you know…the to have and to hold stuff) so there is less of a burden on society.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          Child rearing isn’t the ONLY purpose, but it’s the main one. Marriage is a natural institution designed to protect the rights of children (and their mothers). Of course, our current laws don’t really do that at all, so it’s no wonder that people have lost track of what marriage is.

          Marriage is basically a consequence of people having sex, and societies thinking about how to protect the children (and the vulnerable women) that result from it.

          That’s from a natural perspective. From a religious perspective, Jesus said marriage is for this earth, not for the next. Why not for the next? People still have sexual organs in Heaven. People still can make close friendships in Heaven. It’s because marriage is necessary in this world for reproduction, but that does not occur in Heaven.

          • Guest

            +1 Dave.

            Marriage in our society has been divorced from it’s actual purpose (even the secular purpose) for so long that most people today, especially younger people, don’t even remember what it was. I can still remember (in the days before no-fault divorce) when divorce was seen as really scandalous and the person seeking the divorce as particularly heartless and often immoral – and not just in Catholic circles either.

            Men actually lost jobs and other positions of authority when they divorced and left their children’s home – it was seen as moral weakness at least publically (men may well have commiserated with each other privately). That kind of social pressure kept people motivated to work on fixing marital problems and be less selfish in their attachments rather than just walk away. There were far fewer expectations for marriage to be all rosy and perrsonally fulfilling in order to be worth sticking it out as well.

        • Theodore Seeber

          I am married with a child. And I stick by what I said.

          I’d rather see civil marriage go away than same sex marriage destroy this institution.

          And I see no purpose whatsoever in government sponsored marriages of convenience.

          • Patrick Loveless

            Amen to this. It’s like the government sponsoring friendships – except you get to legitimately have sex with each other and receive free money and recognition from it.

            THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO REASON to promote this definition of marriage. It has every reason to protect the Catholic understanding of it – for the couple, for the children, between all parties and God, for ever and ever ’til death.

  • Inis Magrath

    Sorry but I completely disagree that the March for Marriage was not extensively covered. I read all about it and heard all about it and listened to it — and no, I was not there.

    I read about it on “mainstream” sites like huffpost, wapo, NYTimes, ABCnews, Fox and more. I even listened to extensive interviews and conversations with March for Marriage participants on SiriusXM satellite radio channel OutQ, which is a LGBT-themed station. I listened to the attorney arguing your side of the issue, Chuck Cooper, discuss the case at the staged podium outside the court right after oral arguments.

    So I don’t buy your premise. The full coverage of the March for Marriage is out there and easy to find. It might be convenient for you to lament among yourselves that no one is paying your cause due attention, but it simply isn’t so.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’m guessing that most of the things you found came on after the fact. I’m also guessing they were smallish back pagey things. I may be wrong. Just my guess.
      I googled (admittedly not an in depth way to look, but recent coverage would have been up there, and checked the networks and cable news. nada.) I did see a piece in the Huff Po, but it was about a march for gay marriage in chicago. In fact, I saw a lot of coverage on things favoring gay marriage, including coverage of gay rights activists in dc that day. I also put up a post asking readers to tell me about coverage if they found it. No one brought anything forward. Not scientific, but this article I use in the post is also not the only one commenting on it.
      I don’t subscribe to sirius so I didn’t check that.

      • abb3w

        The news media very rarely cover protest marches before they happen, so I’m not sure that’s a fair criticism.

        For comparison, there was relatively little pre-event media coverage of the “Reason Rally”, which was on the order of the same size. There may have been somewhat more afterward; that can be explained by media bias, by such a secular gathering being comparatively unusual and thus more “news”, or simply by being slightly larger.

        The only coverage I recall seeing for the March for Marriage was on the PBS News Hour; however, most of the other news coverage I get is via the Fark aggregator feed, so I could easily have missed some. My recollection is that coverage of the “Reason Rally” seemed focused in the religious niche media, rather than mainstream. That recollection could be mistaken, but I’m not turning up any mention of the Rally on CNN’s main site.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          I guess I confused it with my answer to the other commenter. I meant after it happened, but on the day. That’s when I tried to find coverage.

    • Dale

      Inis, I agree that the March for Marriage was frequently mentioned by the mainstream news media. However, it wasn’t covered in any detail, and certainly not as a story in itself. In general, the news organizations seemed interested in the minor conflicts which happened between marchers and the pro-gay marriage supporters.

      For reasons I don’t understand, the marchers had to pass though the middle of a throng of their opponents. Two men wound up exchanging words, then shoves and then punches. And at one point a gay marriage supporter physically blocked the march route, stopping it for several minutes as the march leaders tried to reason with the guy.

      Almost all of the news coverage summed up the march in those terms: gay marriage supporters vs. opponents, all gather for the Supreme Court hearing.

  • http://reluctantliberal.wordpress.com Reluctant Liberal

    Slightly off topic, but Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council should never be used as a source for anything. He is not a reliable source and should be treated that way.

    Two separate examples:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/22/evangelical-men-need-to-stop-lying-about-womens-health/
    And towards the end of this one:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/21/seneca-falls-and-selma-and-stonewall/

    And a quote from Christianity Today:
    “We have major reservations about FRC’s methods for public engagement. Too often, its leaders traffic in flatly untrue statements.”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/08/when-you-tell-them-you-still-got-to-sell-them/

    Of course, I’m sure I’ve quoted unreliable sources as well. If I ever do so on this blog, please let me know.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’ve worked with the Family Research Council, in particular Dr David Prentice, on legislation in the past. They have been entirely honorable and careful with their facts in the dealings I had with them. They were also very generous in their support of me, especially when you consider that I am a Democrat and they were supporting me against Republicans. I consider Dr Prentice a colleague and a professional friend.

      • tacitus

        Rebecca, if the legislation you are talking about is like the HB 1588 bill you authored, which forces under-age victims of sexual abuse to seek parental consent for any abortion, then I’m not at all surprised that the FRC has been falling over backwards to help you, and *especially* since you are a Democrat (a real feather in their cap, no doubt).

        RL is correct. When it comes to social issues, the FRC has a long history of misrepresenting the facts and of outright lies, not to mention the constant demonization of gays and lesbians. The documentation is all there, just a Google away, should you care to look.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          No, that is not what I am referring to.

          You are also incorrect as to what HB 1588 does.

          Before you accuse others of not getting their facts straight, you should check your own.

  • FW Ken

    A friend of mine today referred to the American mainstream media as the North Korean Press.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X