Did you know that all gay reporters, like black reporters covering Barack Obama‘s presidential inauguration, automatically lean liberal while printing biased reportage that’s critical of conservatives? If it weren’t for these atrocious “undercover gay reporters,” which are using their employers’ newsprint and television broadcasts to disseminate tenants of the radical gay agenda, maybe bigots could get a fair shake!
That’s the theory of ridiculous person and columnist Jonetta Rose Barras, who writes:
Some opponents of same-sex marriage wonder why they couldn’t get coverage in the press similar to proponents.
The press repeatedly referred to Rev Harry Jackson as an outsider come to the District to create trouble. Hundreds of District residents are involved in the movement. But few in the press made an effort to reach out into the city to discern what are the real concerns of opponents. Instead, Stand4Marriage coalition members, who continue to fight District officials on the marriage equality bill even after the DC Council approved it last week (11-2) and after the mayor signed it into law, have been cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory crew.
Opponents believe they have received the raw deal in the media because the deck was stacked against them. Several of the individuals who reported on the legislation are themselves gay. None revealed their status in the gay community, which surely created in TBR’s mind a bias. TBR doesn’t want to out anyone. They know who they are.
Standard practice in journalism is for reporters to publicly announce, whether in print, on the radio, on television, on the Internet, when there is a conflict of interest. But not one of the reporters made such an announcement. And that is a disgrace.
So here’s a warning for all you white reporters out there: Any time you cover a white politician, you must disclose your skin color! And if you have health insurance while discussing the health care debate, disclose it. And if you like sunshine and ice cubes, you must also disclose it when reporting on the environment.
Also, there’s a difference between a “conflict of interest” — particularly because there are some gay men and women who do not want full marriage rights — and calling out bigotry when you see it. Which of course doesn’t apply to reporter Larry Grard, who is no longer an undercover anti-gay reporter.
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.
(h/t Amanda Hess)
FakeName
“If it weren’t for these atrocious ‘undercover gay reporters,’ which are using…”
WHO. People are “who”. Inanimate objects are “which”. Not really that difficult.
Stef
I majored in journalism in college, and the first thing you learn in JOUR300 (ethics of journalism – doesn’t really exist but whatever), is that you do NOT disclouse your preferences toward ANYTHING!
You don’t put political flyers on your front lawn, you don’t wear team hats if you report on sports, you don’t sign up for political rallies, and you don’t march in pride parades.
Is it a stock based law? no, of course not. But most papers encourage their reporters not to take a stance on such issues, or at least not publically.
So no, disclosing the sexuality of a writer is not encouraged in this case (in terms of how these people are presenting it. no one is encouraging people to stay in the closet, but my point is its not adviced to be like “HEY IM GAY!” before posting an article in the WaPost about gay marriage.”
Reporters will have their own opinions on EVERYTHING. It doesn’t mean they still can’t report. I know plenty of Yankees Fans who do News commentary in New England, and plenty of registered dems who report on the Rep Nat Convention. Being gay and reporting on an anti=equality group is no different. Should Catholic and Evangelical reporters be banned from reporting on Gay rallies and Pride parades?
C’mon.
KSirtis
It’s tenets not tenants. Use a dictionary.