Pew Research: Media Coverage Biased 5 to 1 in Favor of Gay Marriage

Media20Manioulation

It’s official. A new Pew Research study indicates that media coverage of the gay marriage debate is strongly biased in favor of gay marriage.

That’s in case you were wondering.

Was anybody wondering?

Personally, I think this falls into the “new study indicates that nuts roll downhill” kind of news. The study is based on coverage of the period a few weeks ago when the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on the issue of gay marriage. It turns out that news coverage, including that from Fox News, was 5 to 1 in favor of gay marriage.

Of course, the study is somewhat misrepresentative of the actual media bias in favor of gay marriage, since the media typically tries to paint a gloss of balance on their social-issue propaganda when they’re reporting big stories like Supreme Court hearings. I think day to day reporting is probably much worse.

Also, when you consider the total sell job that we get from outlets such as HBO — which also hard-sells euthanasia, abortion and polygamy, among other other things — it begins to look like 5 to 1 is actually a low number.

The people of this country, indeed, the people of the world, are being pushed, propagandized and often bullied into accepting destructive social changes. Gay marriage is one of those changes. At the same time, there is an almost equal attack on faith, particularly Christian faith.

From the National Catholic Register:

Daily News

Pew Reports Media Bias on Marriage Debate (1913)

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighed DOMA and Proposition 8, news stories favored same-sex ‘marriage’ 5-1.

 06/17/2013 Comment

WASHINGTON — The Pew Research Center released a report on June 17 that confirmed overwhelming media bias in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Researchers evaluated news and opinion coverage of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court and related stories dealing with two landmark marriage cases and found that all mainstream media outlets favored “marriage equality,” including Fox News.

Pew reported that stories “with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.”

This skewed treatment, researchers concluded, conveyed “a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Now, as the nation awaits the high court’s rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8, which are expected by the end of June, the unbalanced news coverage will likely prompt intense scrutiny and debate on the media’s role in affecting the outcome of those cases.

Some constitutional scholars have predicted that the justices, mindful of the ongoing debate over Roe v. Wade, would be cautious about legalizing a social practice that lacked broad public support.

But if news stories indeed conveyed a sense of “momentum,” the high court’s deliberations might accommodate that shift.

“I have to think the justices — and especially the chief — are very cognizant of the shifting public opinion,” Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told The Hill in mid-May, during the period that Pew researchers charted the flow of coverage favoring one side of the issue.

 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pew-reports-media-bias-on-marriage-debate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-06-18%2002:11:01#ixzz2Was206vD

 

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Only five to one? Frankly it feels like every story is biased for gay marriage. I don’t recall a single one yet that was not.
    Now people know what Conservatives have to go through on just about every issue.

  • Dave

    I can believe that. 5 are biased in favor of it, for every one that is close enough to be declared neutral. There are none, of course, that are biased against it.

  • Sus_1

    I wonder if part of the bias is that people working in the media don’t want to offend their gay co-workers.

  • EMS

    And it creeps up in normal entertainment. One of my favorite shows used to be Warehouse 13 (I like sci fi). Then they brought in a gay character, which was fine. Until last week, when he met his former guy (zero chemistry between them BTW), and the show ended with the cast enthusing that they slept together. I was thinking – do they even know what sleeping together means for gay men?

    • Sterling Ericsson

      Sex? The same thing that sleeping together means for other couples?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        If you can’t sleep together without sex, you shouldn’t be getting married.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          Of course you can sleep together without sex. That’s not what I meant at all. I was just making a statement that it wouldn’t be anything different from what happens when two opposite sex people sleep together. There may or may not be sex involved.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            And in my estimation, NEITHER should be going on, and there was no need in the story line in question to even introduce a gay character.

            • Sterling Ericsson

              What would be the need to introduce a straight character? The need is the exact same because either doesn’t really matter.

  • Sven2547

    It’s no secret that support for marriage equality is rising throughout the US. This is a fact. Yet reporting that fact is supposedly “being skewed in favor of same-sex marriage”. So what’s your solution? Push the media to offer an alternative to the facts? In other words, lie?

    • TheodoreSeeber

      That fact is a big fantasy on the part of roaring mice.

      And since they failed to include *fictional* media in their study, I’d say the ratio is more like 50:1, now that even the British Science Fiction Show Doctor Who has introduced an unnecessary-to-the-story-line interspecies lesbian couple.

      • Sven2547

        What’s the “fantasy”, that support for marriage equality is on the rise? It’s the truth!

        And as for fiction, what do you propose? Should we never, ever portray happy same-sex couples in television? They’re real. They exist (well not the Doctor Who aliens, but you know what I mean). Trying to cover up the existence of gay people seems pretty dishonest to me.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          “What’s the “fantasy”, that support for marriage equality is on the rise? It’s the truth!”

          It is an illusion based entirely on an overconsumption of virtual media images, or in other words, FICTION.

          You’re just buying into the idea that gay people are more than the 2% of the population verified by the Center for Disease Control.

          Which is a lie as well.

          Now, a question: Do you have a biological mother and a biological father?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Also, why aren’t there any good heterosexual role models in fiction anymore?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Since the reply got deleted, emphasis should have been on GOOD heterosexual role models. As in ones that actually stay married, raise kids, get old, die, and leave enough grandchildren to rent a hall for family reunions.

            That’s a good heterosexual role model, and that’s the type that I don’t see in fiction hardly ever.

    • kenofken

      You need to understand that in the conservative paradigm. The neoconservative paradigm, really, it’s simply not possible that a majority of Americans would ever favor gay marriage on its own merits or make up their own mind on the matter contrary to the neocon party line. It can only have happened because the Mainstream Media and Gay Mafia brainwashed everyone…

      • TheodoreSeeber

        That isn’t a neoconservative paradigm. That is a biological paradigm.

        We now have some clones without two biological parents, but even the scientists that have created them don’t let them get beyond a few days from conception.

        Gay marriage has no “on its own merits”. If it did, then people wouldn’t need to use bullying tactics to promote it, like insulting conservatives.

        • Sven2547

          Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Freedom of association. Freedom of privacy. These are the merits of marriage equality.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            True Liberty is the ability to do what is right, not what is wrong. Homosexuals and radical feminists are some of the most unhappy people I’ve ever met, I do not believe Happiness is pursuable for them; no matter what changes we make to the marriage law, it will not address the problems with pursuit of happiness that are inherent to those cultures, because marriage isn’t the problem. Freedom of association is about banding together to address grievances, I don’t see anybody preventing homosexuals from doing that (but boy, just let heterosexuals try it, they get called all sorts of names). Freedom of privacy has technically been a legal myth since the phone system started being converted to digital in 1967 and has been a practical impossibility since 1996 or so.

            So do you have any *real* merits, or is this really just about trying to cheat on estate and tax refunds normally used to protect the creation of the next generation?

            • Sven2547

              True Liberty is the ability to do what is right, not what is wrong. Homosexuals and radical feminists are some of the most unhappy people I’ve ever met, I do not believe Happiness is pursuable for them; no matter what changes we make to the marriage law, it will not address the problems with pursuit of happiness that are inherent to those cultures, because marriage isn’t the problem.

              Spoken like someone who doesn’t know many gay people. Here’s a crazy idea: stop treating them like second-class citizens and maybe they’ll be a bit happier? Just a thought.
              I agree that liberty is about going what’s right. Things like marrying the person you love to create a more stable relationship, address visitation and right-of-attorney issues, and promote financial stability. Why are you discouraging stable long-term relationships?

              Freedom of association is about banding together to address grievances, I don’t see anybody preventing homosexuals from doing that

              Part of the freedom of association is intimate association. Google is your friend.

              Freedom of privacy has technically been a legal myth…

              The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the 4th and 14th Amendments as granting a right to privacy. Not a myth.

              So do you have any *real* merits, or is this really just about trying to cheat on estate and tax refunds normally used to protect the creation of the next generation?

              Tell me, is it a tax cheat for infertile people to marry? The reproduction argument is complete and utter bunk. Never in this history of American law has child-bearing been a requirement of marriage. The State is more than happy to grant childless marriages, so why try to ban this one specific kind? Because it’s not about reproduction.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                “Here’s a crazy idea: stop treating them like second-class citizens and maybe they’ll be a bit happier?”

                Homosexuals, as a class, are materially wealthier than heterosexuals. So are DINKs. The problem with their happiness doesn’t lie in being “treated like second class citizens”, because they aren’t.

                “Things like marrying the person you love”

                There is nothing in homosexuality resembling love. There is nothing in the promiscuity of extramarital heterosexuality resembling love. Given the existence of no-fault divorce, I can’t even say there is anything in non-Catholic marriage resembling love.

                Want love? Do things RIGHT, not wrong.

                Why do we need legal recognition for intimate association?

                “The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the 4th and 14th Amendments as granting a right to privacy. Not a myth.”

                Law itself is mythical. It is entirely a made up story by human beings- educated, electing human beings like Rebecca, but still human beings. I do not understand nor agree with your worship of the legislation of the Supreme Court.

                “Tell me, is it a tax cheat for infertile people to marry? ”

                Yes. And I’m for the elimination of all civil marriage at this point, because the one thing the homosexual lobby got right is that we shouldn’t have discrimination in the law. At all. I live in a state with a civil union law, and I’d like to see it expanded to cover all potential households, including the heterosexual ones.

                THAT would be equality. What you are asking for is privilege.

                • Sven2547

                  So you’re saying:
                  * Homosexuals make more than the average American, and are therefore not being oppressed (the fact that in most states they can’t marry, and can be fired simply for being gay, notwithstanding).
                  * There is nothing in homosexuality resembling love (you’ve clearly never spoken to any homosexual ever).
                  * There is nothing in non-Catholic marriage resembling love (should we ban non-Catholic marriage too, while we’re at it?).
                  * Law itself is a mythical concept (LOL).
                  * Consummation is a legal test for marriage (big fat “citation needed” on that one).
                  * It is, in fact, a tax cheat for infertile people to marry (I’m glad you’re not in the IRS).

                  You know what? My work is done here. The sheer, staggering, fact-free denialism of your comment has illustrated the absurdity of your position better than I ever could. Bravo, TheodoreSeeber. I bid you adieu.

                  • hamiltonr

                    This is getting stupid. Ted sometimes has trouble expressing himself. I don’t know what he meant, but I doubt that it came out exactly as he intended. If I’d been more on point, I would have not allowed that comment to go up, simply because it’s so incendiary.

                    Of course homosexuals can love. I don’t blame you Sven for getting so upset, but I assure you, Ted almost certainly said it wrong.

                    Now this whole line of comments is veering toward personal insult and saying ugly things about whole groups of innocent people. I apologize for letting it go that direction. I usually am more conscientious than that.

                    Otherwise, this has been an interesting discussion. Try to realize that each side has another side. Both sides of this issue feel that they are dealing with a moral imperative. That makes both sides tend toward calling those who disagree with them moral ingrates.

                    This is nonsense.

                    There are good people on both sides of the debate. There are also some true moral ingrates on both sides of the debate. However, I don’t think any of the moral ingrates are commenting on this post.

                    Be kind to one another.

                  • TheodoreSeeber

                    Trying to clear the air a bit- in my own way.

                    “* Homosexuals make more than the average American, and are therefore not being oppressed (the fact that in most states they can’t marry, and can be fired simply for being gay, notwithstanding).”

                    Yep. BTW, most states did away with those laws back in the mid 1990s when they made homophobia into “hate crimes”.

                    “* There is nothing in homosexuality resembling love (you’ve clearly never spoken to any homosexual ever).”

                    True love requires *sacrificing* for the *other person’s good* and quite often requires abstinence in some situations (like not spreading STDs). Like I said, there’s nothing resembling love in most forms of heterosexuality either.

                    “Law itself is a mythical concept (LOL).”

                    That should be obvious in that there is no (political) law that existed before politicians.

                    “Consummation is a legal test for marriage (big fat “citation needed” on that one).”

                    Ok. Here you go:
                    http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/
                    “An annulment must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy.”

                    I hold that homosexuals are actually physically incapable of truly consummating the marriage, the physical side of love that 9 months later you have to give a name.

                    Of course, that raises the question of infertile heterosexual couples as well, and yes, to treat them equally under the law we’d have to deny marriage to them as well.

                    Which means the ONLY form left that is fully compatible with the constitution is to deny marriage to everybody- and replace it with civil unions.

                    “It is, in fact, a tax cheat for infertile people to marry (I’m glad you’re not in the IRS).”

                    Letter of the law often differs from intent of the law. See point about law being mythical and inconsistent with itself.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                Odd, I thought I responded to this, but maybe I’m just faster than Rebecca.

                Yes, I do consider it a tax cheat for infertile people (DINKs) to claim tax breaks intended for the raising of children.

                Consummation has been a legal test for marriage for 200 years.

                Homosexuals and DINKs are currently treated as first class citizens with higher than average income, and of course due to the lack of kids, much more disposable income.

                I can’t think of any compelling reason for the state to be interested in intimate relationships of any sort.

                And finally, the law itself is a piece of fiction that has little to no basis left in physical reality.

      • avalpert

        You either need to not throw labels around or actually try to understand them. Neoconservatives have historically been mostly indifferent to if not in favor of gay marriage – it is absurd to call this a neoconservative paradigm when the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum and even Irving Kristol didn’t fit it.

  • AshleyWB

    Is having morals biased? Anti-stealing stories probably outnumber pro-stealing stories by far more than 5 to 1, but I doubt anyone but thieves thinks that’s a problem.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      LOL! Funny, homosexuality has traditionally been called immoral.

  • Teresamerica

    Funny me, I thought news correspondents were supposed to simply report the news not advance a political agenda. The media’s pro-gay agenda has been so blatant and around for a long while.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    I don’t exactly see this as surprising. The coverage has been for things like people in Congress switching to support and things like that. There aren’t people switching to oppose. There are people either already opposing or those that haven’t stated one way or the other.

    So where exactly would coverage of those opposing come from if nothing really changes in that camp?

    Not to mention that the Pew article states, “Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those arguing against.” Obviously a more consistent message is going to get more consistent coverage. That’s quite obvious.

    All in all, this study doesn’t show any sort of bias in news, but just accurate coverage of the overall trend and the information that’s out there. Otherwise, wouldn’t you have expected Fox News to be the exact opposite? The fact that that isn’t true just shows that there really isn’t anything to cover news-wise in the oppose camp. They don’t do anything.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Let’s see, you have the symbol of the gay bully for your avatar, and you don’t see it as surprising. You see this as “accurate coverage of the overall trend” that doesn’t exist outside of people like you vandalizing churches and throwing around words like “homophobe” to create a culture of terror and fear.

      Exactly WHY should I take your word for anything at all?

      • kenofken

        You shouldn’t take his word, or mine, or anyone else’s at face value. Look at all the evidence with your own eyes and see what it tells you, taken as a whole. If you really think growing public support for gay marriage is a lie made up by mainstream media and liberals, go ask leading members of your own movement or political tribe what their honest assessment is.

        Not what they say when they have to speak to the cameras and keep up a face, but what they would tell you one man to another. Your assertion that gay activists have somehow “bullied” the entire country into their corner supposes that they have been working from a position of strength for a long time. That does not square with the reality of the situation.

        The modern debate on this topic began 40 years ago, with Stonewall. Outside of perhaps San Francisco, gays were in no position to dictate anything to anyone for most of that time. Conservatives owned the public square and/or White House for most of that time. Clinton, a supposed liberal, was the most activist anti-SSM president who ever lived when it came to actual legislation and things like DADT. Being gay was a criminal offence until 10 years ago with Lawrence v Texas. Obama didn’t feel sufficiently pushed, or politically safe enough, to openly support “gay marriage” until the start of his second term.

        But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your account of events is true. The gays have bullied and/or hoodwinked an entire nation. We’re talking about a demographic that you say is no more than 2% of the population. I’ll buy that. It’s reasonable to assume that the real power players, the “gay activists”, the money men, the big media influencers, are some subset of that. If this tiny sliver of a tiny sliver can overrun an entire society in the span of one generation, with no real buy-in from that society, what does that say about the power of your idea?

  • Sterling Ericsson

    It doesn’t mean that at all. Sexual behavior covers a wide range of things and has nothing to do with things “fitting together”, whatever that means. If sex was really so black and white, then vaginal sex would be the only thing animals practice, but it isn’t.

    • Dave

      I tried to respond earlier, so will respond again. Maybe Rebecca just didn’t like my comment. I would be careful about using animals as a reference point on anything, as some animals also eat their young; in general, animals do any number of things that no one would consider to be moral in the human realm. You kind of switched terms from “sex” to “sexual behavior.” I would agree that anything involving a genital, and even many things not involving them, qualify as “sexual behavior.” As far as “fitting together”, it’s really quite obvious from the basic design of the sexes and the results when the right parts fit together, and there is really not much further to discuss on that subject if one doesn’t see that.

      • hamiltonr

        Dave, I didn’t delete any comments of yours. I’ve deleted comments on this particular post that are insulting to Christians, homosexuals, or other commenters. There have been quite a few of them, but none from you.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      The whole intent of moral behavior is to be better than the animals.

  • hamiltonr

    Bob, I don’t think you got this out the way you wanted to say it.

    I am assuming that you are trying to say that Christians were in favor of slavery in the 19th century. While it’s true that some Christians did favor Christianity, the abolitionist movement was based on the Gospel understanding of the universal and absolute value of every human life. There would have been no abolitionist movement in this country or in England without Christian principles.

    As for your snipe about what people will believe in the future, you and I will both be long dead, so it doesn’t matter all that much to us. However, I would guess that by that time, the whirlwind will have been reaped and people will be wondering how they were ever sold such a destructive bill of goods as to believe that killing their own children, manufacturing people like they were widgets, killing our elderly, the disabled and anyone else we decide is a “burden,” along with pretending that there is no functional difference between a man and a woman and two men or two women.

    I think they’re going to hold us accountable for the death and destruction we are pouring down on future generations.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Sure, Christians were in favor of slavery, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that there were Christians who (from our standpoint) were doing the right thing and trying to shut down slavery. My point was that they might’ve sounded rather like the pro-gay-marriage advocates today, with their broken-record repetitions of the same “slavery is bad” refrain (kinda like the nonstop “gay marriage is good” song that you note that the media is singing).

      There would have been no abolitionist movement in this country or in England without Christian principles.

      Huh? Are you saying that only Christians can realize that slavery is wrong? Or that only Christians can create an argument that slavery is wrong? Surely you’re not saying that there are no non-Christian anti-slavery advocates?

      I’ll grant with pleasure the fact that there have been some staunch Christian anti-slavery advocates, some of whom have pointed to Christian principles. Terrific. The irony that can’t be swept under the rug is that the Old Testament makes clear that God was A-OK with slavery.

      the whirlwind will have been reaped and people will be wondering how they were ever sold such a destructive bill of goods as to believe that killing their own children, manufacturing people like they were widgets, killing our elderly, the disabled and anyone else we decide is a “burden,” along with pretending that there is no functional difference between a man and a woman and two men or two women.

      I’m sure each of us could write a book on our very different ideas on these subjects. Unfortunately, this post probably isn’t the place. But I haven’t seen your input at my blog. Drop by sometime and give us your take.

      • hamiltonr

        The question of the Gospel’s impact on Western civilization and how it views the individual person is too big for a combox. Suffice it to say that the abolitionist movements in both the United States and Britain were Christian based and inspired.

        I’ve read some of your ideas about God. I think those discussions really are more suited the purposes you have for your blog than for this one.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t think slavery is a net positive for Christianity, given the Southern pastors with their well-grounded biblical arguments in favor of slavery. And I’ll repeat my question: can you be saying that non-Christians can’t support or make an anti-slavery argument?

          • hamiltonr

            No.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X