Queerty is better as a member

Login | Register
  media

Does the Washington Post Need to Keep Defending Its Coverage of Gays?

Is it admirable the Washington Post is going to great lengths to defend its coverage of homogays? Or silly that the newspaper’s ombudsman feels the need to devote column inches to support positive portrayals of gay Americans?

Both, of course. It’s great to see Post Andrew Alexander take some time out to explain — to morons — that reporting on D.C.’s gay marriage law, and the happy gay couples exercising their new rights, is what newspapers in the city ought to be doing. It’s also perfectly ridiculous that such an explanation is needed.

Already, Alexander had to tell readers why a photograph of two gay men kissing, published on the Post‘s front page, was just fine. Now, thanks to research claiming the Post is becoming HRC’s newsletter, he’s at it again.

And the conservative Culture and Media Institute said its review showed that in the week after March 3, The Post coverage totaled 543 column inches (“equal to nearly four full pages”) and included 14 photos of “gay celebrations.” Supporters of same-sex marriage were quoted 10 times more than opponents, the group said.

“As soon as this became law, it was basically The Washington Post standing up and saying ‘Yay!’ ” Dan Gainor, the group’s vice president, said in an interview. “It’s news,” he acknowledged, but the coverage was excessive and “one-sided.” Conservatives see it as evidence that The Post is hopelessly liberal, he said.

The Post is not always sufficiently attuned to conservative perspectives. But with gay marriage coverage, the accusations of journalistic overkill are off base.

His whole column is worth a read, not because it will teach you anything you don’t already know, but because it’s an exercise in speaking to the ignorant, and the best chance at conveying a responsible message. Whether opponents to equality digest it is their concern.

What do you think of this post?
LOL (0) WTF (0) Hot (0) More Please (8)
By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 22, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , ,
4 Comments

No. 1 · Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

Apparently they believe they do.

Posted: Mar 22, 2010 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 2 · scott ny'er

I think it’s great that he’s defending his position and that the WPost covered the story.

Posted: Mar 22, 2010 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 3 · Sam

I find that picture extremely offensive and I strongly believe it does not belong on the front page of a newspaper. My hypothetical CHILDREN could have seen that and thought it was OKAY to wear a purple shirt with a red tie. PURPLE AND RED! What are you, a quirky middle-aged woman? I just hope impressionable youngsters focus more on the other man’s sensible blue tie.

People think handsome gaysians can go around coordinating colors willy-nilly – WELL, THEY CAN’T.

Posted: Mar 22, 2010 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 4 · jeffree

Reading the WaPo blog on the Gay Smooch , I was very happy to see the vast majority of commenters supported the papers’ decision 2 include that foto & put it on the front page.

Our paper just ran a photo of two ladies holding their marriage licence, although the article was ok.

YEA Andrew Alexander for speaking out! And to WaPo for printing the foto.

Posted: Mar 23, 2010 at 2:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]

Add your Comment




It's easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in!


Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy.



POPULAR ON QUEERTY

Copyright 2012 Queerty, Inc.
Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.