Reporting on the California Supreme Court hearing yesterday, NPR reporter Karen Grigsby Bates decided to focus on the people really hurt by Proposition 8, which in her view, means Prop. 8 supporters. She talks with Dave Leatherby, “a devout Roman Catholic father of 10” who runs an ice cream shop in Sacramento and who donated $20,000 to Yes on 8 and who’s “mystified” why gays and lesbians would send him angry emails and phone calls. Bates goes further, saying that all the protests have given “rise to charges that as gay rights advocates tried to change public opinion, some stepped over the line and turned their protest into a witch hunt”, which is a journalisticly weasel way to insert her own opinion into the article. Watch how easy it is:
“Some are now claiming that Karen Grigsby Bates is using public radio to bash gays and lesbians by accusing them of ‘witch hunts’ without bothering to get any quotes from actual gay people.” Except, we actually have an example.
The Stranger‘s Dan Savage is calling on gays, lesbians and allies to call in to NPR and voice their displeasure, saying:
“Gee, maybe a gay person should’ve been asked to respond to those charges. Perhaps a gay person could’ve pointed out that we are under no obligation to patronize businesses that are owned and operated by our enemies, discussed other boycotts launched during other civil rights struggles, and pointed out that gays and lesbians have just as much right as faithful Mormons or devout Roman Catholics to act on our consciences and spend our money accordingly, and, again, that boycotts are a peaceful and legitimate form of protest, not “witch hunts.”
Direct complaints about KGB’s idiotic and unfair “reporting” to NPR’s ombudsman here, or call 202-513-3245.”
Yes, that’s right: We’re calling for a witch hunt on Karen Grigsby Bates.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
David Hauslaib
Disagree with Prop 8 supporters all you want. But I want to hear their stories. I’ll be the first to criticize anti-gay advocates, but we’ll better understand how to change public opinion if we know who our opponents are.
It’s silly to think the media should only report the pro-gay side of things. With only this single NPR report to go on, I applaud Karen Grigsby Bates for producing this story.
Dan Savage is well-intentioned, but he’s gone a bit overboard here. He criticizes Bates for language like describing Margie Christofferson, daughter of El Coyote’s owner, as a “faithful Mormon” — which she IS. Savage doesn’t like when Gates says Yes on 8 supporters found themselves “squarely in the bull’s-eye of angry gay rights activists” — but they WERE. (I would use the same language to describe gay rights supporters being “squarely in the bull’s-eye” of angry gay rights opponents, like the Mormon Church.)
Sure, Bates could have (and perhaps should have) included the anti-Prop 8 side of things, but NPR, and Gates herself, have reported fairly on both sides before:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95568740
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96670565
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101531032
tonedef
Just a correction- Karen Grigsby Bates is not NPR’s ombudsman, she is just a reporter. You should direct all issues with this story to Alicia Shepard, through the form Dan Savage linked to (http://www.npr.org/templates/contact/index.php?columnId=2781901).
rogue dandelion
burn her
or throw water on her… forgot how that works.
Michael
@David Hauslaib:
I totally agree with you, David. NPR has been one of the most even handed news orgs about this issue. If this was the Fox News Channel or the Deseret(sp?) News, then I would be totally hunting. Thanks for the links to the other reports.
strumpetwindsock
@rogue dandelion:
I am all for holding irresponsible journalists to task (I’m a former writer myself).
But frankly, I didn’t think the story was out of line. In any struggle some people wind up taking the brunt of the backlash, and her story dealt specifically with that side of the story. I’m sure if you pick it apart you could show a hint of bias, but I would hardly call it a polemic like you’d see from FOX News.
So long as the story was accurate and not manipulative (didn’t seem overly so in my opinion, and again it was dealing specifically with the backlash, so I don’t expect her to recount all sides of the issue in detail). The main thing is I don’t think it unfairly branded the anti-8 movement as a witch hunt.
Just my professional opinion, and FYI I am a strong opponent of Proposition 8.
strumpetwindsock
To add, I agree the story would have been more balanced had she interviewed someone from the anti-8 forces saying that boycotts were a perfectly valid form of protest.
That said, I think the story was not what I would consider an unfair attack. Frankly I think she did her job in letting us know how some of these small supporters have been affected.
Jason
Fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me! I don’t care what the reasoning behind it. Hate is hate.
So I’m guessing they all donated money unknowingly, and that all those anti-biglt protests are a miscommunication of their actual intent?
PLEASE.
strumpetwindsock
@Jason:
Yes I agree, but the issue is not about the people who support Prop 8. The Question is does a journalist touching the story make her complicit in that hatred?
Domaq
It was a very odd piece of reporting. It presented the side of the Prop 8 supporters but only in the shallowest way.
The mystified ice cream shop owner was the perfect example. The reporter could have asked him if he thought opponents of Prop 8 should have not responded to his donation. After all, he felt strongly enough to give $20k to support Prop 8, didn’t he think opponents would feel just as strongly. Are the angry e-mails and phone calls really that big of a mystery?
The tone of the piece suggested that the supports felt there should not be any consequences for their support. I am mystified by that. Couldn’t she at least have asked if they had ever heard of the old expression, “politics ain’t beanbag”
strumpetwindsock
@Domaq:
Agreed, but it also looks like this is a straight new piece (four minutes) not a news feature story, where I would expect more in-depth analysis.
She reports that the one business has suffered, and that the administrators at the other organization elected to quit. She does not say that that is a bad thing, and frankly I think it is good reporting to know that that sort of thing is going on – whether one agrees with it or not.
Again, I would say she erred by interviewing a person from the pro-8 forces without an interview from anti-8… and without that balance the word “witch hunt was probably ill-advised” but even so I don’t think this story is so flawed that it should not have been reported.
petted
@rogue dandelion: First you check if he/she/it floats and then depending on custom in the US I think it was mainly forced drownings or hangings where as the burning was more of a European thing if I recall correctly.
@David Hauslaib: Your quite right though Dan could be sensationalizing his response to stay in his editorial character.
Anne
My question is, how can a responsible reporter listen to a man say “It’s a matter of opinion, I support gay rights” right after admitting he gave mony to Prop 8? Doesn’t that beg the question, “what the hell are you talking about? You cannot possibly claim to do both.”
secondly, ask most of the people why they voted for it and they will tell you it is because they don’t want their children taught gay marriage in school, which is the result of grossly false advertising on the part of the supporters of Prop 8 including out-of-state and supposedly out-of-politics church groups, especially the Mormons. “Even-handed” reporting would include at least a nod in that general direction.
danny
uhm, most of you seem to be missing the point….the reporter is conveniently using quotes that characterize gay activism and protest as “witch hunts” while the pro Hate supporters are characterized as simply exercising their democratic right. Dan Savage is simply pointing out this glaring double standard.
Mike k
I just wish every time anyone talks about gay issues we have to hear the from other side. I don’t remember hearing from the KKK on MLK day.
David Hauslaib
@Anne: I also appreciate reporters who can, without opining, highlight how ridiculous a person’s argument is by giving him enough rope to hang himself. Any reader would see this person’s stance is bunk given that glaring contradiction.
David Hauslaib
@danny: Frankly, many people DO see it that way. And that’s their right. We can write and report and argue gay activism is not a “witch hunt,” and I certainly hope the media presents fair depictions of each side, but it is BECAUSE a sizable population of citizens support “traditional marriage” — enough that Prop 8 passed — means they deserve a seat at the table. And it’s a reporter’s job to remain unbiased, and offer a chair.
The same way Prop 8 opponents were free to spend money on television advertising to fight the ballot measure, its supporters were free to spend money convincing people to vote for it.
NPR would be guilty of this “double standard” if it never reported on the “gay rights are good” side of things. Which they have done, and will continue to do.
CTBottoms
David, I think you’re missing the point here. No one is denying Prop8 supporters the right or opportunity to present their opinions or their side of the story. But what we ARE upset about is the fact that ONLY their side is being presented, with no countervailing view or opposing opinion presented. It’s sloppy, incomplete reporting, no matter how “obvious” it may seem to you that they’re in the wrong.
And speaking of sloppy, I have to take issue with the fact that underneath Japhy’s original post, you undermine him completely and set up silly straw-man arguments. Disagree all you want but to slip in right below and pull the rug from underneath him seems childish and unprofessional.
Ali
Since this is a contested story, NPR shouldn’t have aired only one side of it. Period.
It doesn’t matter if they regularly air stories that are sympathetic to gay people. If you’re going to have a story where someone is bashing gays, you have to seek a response within that story. It’s just basic journalism ethics and objective reporting.
The journalist in question was sloppy, the outcome was a story that defamed gay people, and that’s why we should complain to NPR’s ombudsperson. I agree that the network as a whole may be objective, but even an objective network doesn’t get a pass for stories like this.
Jonathan
@David Hauslaib:
I think that you have entirely missed the boat on this. I heard the Bates report and was appalled at the extent to which Ms. Bates insterted her own biases into the piece, and yet dressed the piece up as a merely even-handed journalistic look at the suffering of opponents of Prop. 8.
It is hardly a “witch hunt” or persecution to take one’s business away from companies that use their resources to advocate for the repeal of basic human rights for LGB people.
Unfortunately, such unbalanced reportage is fairly common at NPR, even if it doesn’t always crop up with respect to LGBT issues. I’d encourage you to have a look at the blog NPRCheck for more information on how shoddy NPR’s journalistic standards have become in respect of other issues.
strumpetwindsock
@Ali:
I agree she should have interviewed the anti-8 side, but you don’t always have that luxury in a short news piece.
But defamatory? I don’t see that at all. What she did present was accurate, and it was hardly an attack piece.
There is no such thing as a 100 percent unbiased news story; there is always some sort of subtle slant, and all you can really expect is that a story be accurate and relatively fair (and frankly I learn more from stories with a slant I disagree with than those which are preaching to the converted).
If you think she could have done a better job… great! Write a letter; I do it all the time.
But going to the ombudsmun? Maybe you should tally up all the articles which slant in favour of our position before you go running to the umpire and crying foul.
flyerfier
I think it’s funny how shocked the man is about the gay boycott on his business. But how could he not, he’s probably someone who has never been in a position to be boycotted, being a Christian man with ten kids.
And of course El Coyote never reached pre-boycott business levels, with the economic turmoil and all. Poor them!
I have to admit, some backstory about boycotts would have helped make this article more balanced. Groups have been doing it for ages. Less negative language would have helped too.
I’m happy to hear the other side’s point of view, happy to hear they are experiencing some hardship due to it. Not too happy at how it’s shown.. they get to be individual upright citizens while we are portrayed as crazy gay gangstas raping and pillaging their good Christian businesses.
If anything, articles like these will motivate the upright masses to go buy a Leatherby’s old-fashioned H8 sundae.
They’ll support their people while we support those with our views… doesn’t seem like a witch hunt to me.
Darth Paul
@rogue dandelion: The branks are probably the best option in this case.
geoff
Sorry but I’ll reserve my sympathy for the people and families hurt by the passage of Prop 8 , a truly vile and nasty amendment if ever there was one. The boycotts are a good thing. Why would someone want to give their hard earned money to a person or company that donates to a cause that promotes discrimination to them?
Rob
I don’t understand why this story aired yesterday. The Prop 8 boycotts are old news. All of the events described in the story took place in 2008.
Vincent
I dunno, I went to journalism school and if I had inserted my opinion into a news story that something was a “witch hunt” which is pretty inflammatory, I would have been called on it.
Phoenix (You Know Which One)
Oh, boo hoo. Booo fucking hoooooooo. Bigots who made money off the backs of hardworking fags aren’t getting any their money anymore! Booooo hooo! How unfair they stab their customers in the back and their customers refuse to give them more money to fund more bigotry! Booo hooo! That’s no fair! Wahh, waaaah, waaaaaaaaaaah!!! Why don’t all the mean faggots give the bigots their moooooooooney? Why? Why? Why are they soooo unfair!?
That’s pretty much all I got out of that story. We certainly didn’t see our side of the story. NPR these last few years has gone from reporting real news to pandering to the right-wingers. Their days of being liberal is ending. No donations for NPR this year from this fag! They can get their money from all those Prop H8 supporters. They already have experience licking their asses, if Karen Grigsby Bates is any example.
Ted
I have to say that if this was a story with an even slightly pro-gay slant, the wingnuts would be up in arms if there was no right-winger giving his/her slanted view, as “balance”. “There goes the librul media agin!” And NPR would subsequently fall all over themselves to claim that they aren’t biased, tit for tat.
Further, publishing the names of those who have donated to causes is not some new law here in California. If Joe Tenchildren is ignorant of the law, then it is no ones fault but his own. Maybe he should have thought his actions through first. It’s a new concept that I just came up with called “personal responsibility”. Sounds crazy, no?
Dan
You’d have to be blind to not call that a biased story. I would expect no less from Fox, but this is NPR and the language throughout the article has a definite tilt against the gay side of the issue. Those of you who say that it is only guilty of not sharing both sides need to go back and read it again. It does more than not present our side on the issue.
HYHYBT
@Anne: “My question is, how can a responsible reporter listen to a man say “It’s a matter of opinion, I support gay rights” right after admitting he gave mony to Prop 8? Doesn’t that beg the question, “what the hell are you talking about? You cannot possibly claim to do both.”” It’s not impossible to be in favor of some rights but not others. For example, this guy may be for ENDA and against DADT, and even believe that we should have strong civil unions, and still be opposed to allowing us to use the word “marriage.” Someone with an extremely libertarian view might say that gays should be able to marry and serve in the military but that an employer or landlord should have absolute freedom over who to hire or to rent to. Both could legitimately say they “support gay rights” generally, except where it conflicts with something they believe to be more important.”
@Rob: I don’t listen to NPR’s news programs, but I do take podcasts of Car Talk, Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!, and To The Best Of Our Knowledge, and all three of them have been much heavier on the reruns lately than usual, so if they’re running something from four months ago as news, it fits.
Bill Perdue
Of course it was an attack on us.
Whatever consequences these supersitious cult members face for their religious bigotry is well deserved.
Trying to paint them as victims is simply a lie, and trying to say the reporter isn’t biased is no less a lie.
Sebbe
@david hauslaib – agree
mick
Once again Dan Savage flies off the handle without getting all the fact, he did it when you wrote that piece about blacks vs gays and now he’s doing it again, right after this piece they had on Gavin Newsom to define gay marriage.
This is very typical of Dan Savage to run off at the mouth.
Jim
NPR has been trashed in the past for not being so left leaning as to forget there were usually two sides to a story. Recently I’ve noticed that their news department has been much more balanced, although individual stories may be one-sided, there are more visible signs of balance.
I thought her news story was very one-sided, and lament that she did not present any balance, but I don’t blame NPR.
strumpetwindsock
@Vincent:
Actually the story said that the boycotts and protests had given rise to accusations of witch hunts, and that is accurate – whether or not it is a with hunt, some people are saying that it is. I also said though, that she should have realized that use of that term would be inflammatory.
Again, I think the writer made a mistake in not presenting the argument in favour of boycotts, though you should note that her first quote is from someone linking the donation of money to hatred.
But there is a big difference between that and assuming she is arm-in-arm with FOX News and the Mormon Church, and saying that this story should not have been written at all.
Yes it is slanted toward the plight of prop-8 supporters, but it is hardly an attack piece; she is presenting important information that I want to know about.
You cannot expect the news to always reflect your position 100 percent of the time; the best you can hope for is that it be fair and accurate. More importantly, I would not trust a news source that shied away from being critical of any political position, especially if that is my own position.
As a matter of fact, you will probably learn more about your opponents from reading news sources friendly to them (The Economist) than you will from reading those critical (Mother Jones).
I learned a lot of good information from this article: that boycotts are happening, that some people are losing their jobs because of it, that some people are giving more support to pro-8 businesses because of this backlash; and that some people supported prop -8 and for some strange reason still considered themselves friends to the GLBT movement.
That is all important information, and the larger issue she raised is also very important: that of people’s businesses suffering and having to quit their jobs because they took a political stand. She does not say that people have no right to boycott or protest, nor that people should be compelled to buy from businesses they don’t like; she simply presents what is happening, and raises the question of whether it crosses a line or not.
I don’t know if you expect a news source to spoon-feed you your analysis, but frankly I prefer to make up my own mind about the answer to that last question.
If I think a reporter mis-represented or omitted something I write a damn letter. If you’re paying attention you know that no article is ever 100 percent objective; the term is nonsense.
But to argue that there is any issue a reporter should not cover, or that any reporter who presents information sympathetic to your opponents is your enemy is an attack on freedom of the press.
strumpetwindsock
p.s. Much of that was general discussion. Only the first point was in response to VIncent.
Lyndon Evans
Basic Journalism 101 – Who, What, Where, Why and How.
All was answered.
Not every piece of journalism be it print, audio or video need be on the side of Gay Rights.
Nor do all News Organizations including NPR.
I have no problem with the audio report having listened to it half a dozen times before commenting.
As far as the term “witch hunt” used in the piece, I don’t have a problem with that either as, I’m sure to those who have been part of the “backlash” would see it as just that.
Regarding why there was no opposing view from the gay side, that’s not the purpose of the piece.
Had I been an editor at NPR, I would have approved the running of the piece as is.
Yes, I’m a journalist and yes I’m gay.
strumpetwindsock
@Lyndon Evans:
FYI, I read a very good radio transcript when I was learning the trade – a CBC Ideas documentary called “The Politics of Information”. There’s a link to it on this page:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/transcripts/communic.html
The thesis is that people never expected their news to be “objective” until the rise of news services. Before that time readers were aware of the slants in the papers they read – business, trade union, church or otherwise.
The program recounts how some Canadian cities saw the number of newspapers drop sharply as the Canadian Press came in in the 1920s and people expected standardized news coverage.
While some may consider the change a move toward accuracy, in many ways it is less accurate if people have blinders on, assume the news they read is always the “objective” truth, and cease to question or look for other sources.
Same with a piece like this; I prefer to know where the writer is coming from and I care less if s/he has an opinion (any thinking person does) and more that it is fair and accurate.
Again, I don’t expect a writer to spoon-feed me my own opinion. It’s lazy and dangerous.
Buddy
@strumpetwindsock: As a matter of fact, you will probably learn more about your opponents from reading news sources friendly to them (The Economist) than you will from reading those critical (Mother Jones).
Just an interesting tidbit, The Economist has been highly supportive of same sex marriage for years, complete with a featured cover story and prime editorial a couple of years back.
Brian Miller
@David Hauslaib:
Frankly, many people DO see it that way. And that’s their right. We can write and report and argue gay activism is not a “witch hunt,” and I certainly hope the media presents fair depictions of each side, but it is BECAUSE a sizable population of citizens oppose “miscegenation” — enough that Jim Crow passed — means they deserve a seat at the table. And it’s a reporter’s job to remain unbiased, and offer a chair.
The same way Jim Crow opponents were free to spend money on television advertising to fight the ballot measure, its supporters were free to spend money convincing people to vote for it.
NPR would be guilty of this “double standard” if it never reported on the “civil rights are good” side of things. Which they have done, and will continue to do.
Hmmm…
strumpetwindsock
@Buddy: Thanks. Yeah, I know I know their reputation is more perception than reality (and that they concern them selves with financial realpolitik). Their current article supporting drug legalization is a bit of an eye-opener.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193&source=hptextfeature
I also meant it as a reminder to left-wing critics (I would probably fall into that camp) who never bother to crack the business section of a newspaper, even though that is the section most relevant to many of their concerns.
Captain Freedom
@David Hauslaib:
Give me a break! Respect their opinions??? That logic to me is like arguing that German media should show both sides of the concentration camp issue during the Holocaust. Let’s let the Nazis argue in favor of exterminating gays while letting gays argue why they shouldn’t be exterminated.
See where I’m getting at? There is no two-side to this. There are those who believe in equality and those who don’t.
Do we have debates about interracial marriage? Not anymore. If we did then the person sanctioning those debates would be made objects of public ridicule.
Monica Roberts
Oh?
So it’s “fine” for NPR to cancel Jaymyne Canicks’ “News and Notes” but we are supposed to still give “contributions?”
LOl
NO NO NO
Joshua
It can’t be a witch hunt when there are real witches.
Tim in SF
Dammit. I’m late to this thread and it’s just been Godwin’d:
@Captain Freedom: Give me a break! Respect their opinions??? That logic to me is like arguing that German media should show both sides of the concentration camp issue during the Holocaust. Let’s let the Nazis argue in favor of exterminating gays while letting gays argue why they shouldn’t be exterminated.
Damn. I’m wasting my time commenting and all, (see Godwin’s Law). Still, I have a question for Japhy: What do you think about David Hauslaib hijacking your post with the first comment, essentially rebutting it with those links? Are you fine with that? Because I think it’s a dick move, and Hauslaib has lost some credibility in my eyes.
Jaroslaw
OK, I want to hear ALL the news too, both sides, that is the point right? I wish I had actually heard the story in question (does anyone have a link?) but at the same time, I’ve listened to decades of news and it takes about 10 seconds to say at the end of the piece “opponents however say_________”.
Frankly, I’ve seldom heard a contentious issue reported without at least a few seconds of the “other side” so I can see why (Gay) people are so hot under the collar about this one.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
The very first quote in the piece (Dennyson) is from our side.