Gay bishop story shows media biases

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

... "Those who voice their allegiance to the orthodox understanding of doctrine are depcited as homophobic, bigoted or, at the very least, old-fashioned."

This sentence is representative of the way the writer formulates her arguments ... as if "homophobic" and "bigoted" so seamlessly bleed into "old-fashioned." What nonsense. Beware the hit-the-strawman piece dressed up as a "fair and balanced" assessment!

<http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/6535902.htm>

[gratuitous]

1. Yeah, there was a fair and balanced column in the paper today

Which basically said, "If I'm against homosexual marriage, that doesn't mean I'm a bigot. It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't!"

The easy way to test the sentiment is to substitute another minority for "homosexual" and another right for "marriage." For example, if someone says they're against homosexual marriage, no one should perceive them as any more of a bigot than someone who publicly announces that they're against women voting. Or Blacks not being slaves.

Kind of shears off all the bullshit to reveal the hot, pulsing core of discrimination at the heart of these sentiments.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. As an Episcopalian who has just moved to Minneapolis

(the site of General Convention), I saw a lot of press coverage of the confirmation of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

No newspaper, radio, or television report that I am aware of characterized the anti-confirmation group as "bigoted" or "homophobic" or even "old-fashioned" in the journalistic narrative. I did see them described as "conservative," which seems like a fair characterization.

When interviewed, a few supporters of confirmation did characterize opponents in unflattering terms, but the majority refrained from name-calling and emphasized the candidate's positive qualities, the right of the diocese of New Hampshire to choose its own bishop, and the virtues of inclusiveness.

I notice that the author of the article is an intern at the Washington Post. Apparently her journalism professors have not made it clear to her that an article can state the personal opinions of interviewees without making the article "biased," as long as the quotations represent the actual range of opinions about the issue.

All I can say to Ms. Arzua is, "If the shoe fits, wear it."