Media controversy of the day: Washington Post reporter pro-gay

Reporter says he's biased in favor of gay rights, conservatives demand "objectivity"

Topics: Politics, LGBT Rights, Washington Post, Media, Media Criticism, Wall Street Journal, Gay Marriage,

Media controversy of the day: Washington Post reporter pro-gayTerry Gilbert, left, kisses his husband Paul Beppler after wedding at Seattle City Hall, Dec. 9, 2012. (Credit: AP/Elaine Thompson)

Liberal bias alert: A Washington Post reporter said he’s cool with gay people. Conservatives are furious!

OK, it’s a bit more complicated than that. The Post’s ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, ran a column with a classic ombud headline, “Is the Post ‘pro-gay’?” A reader got into a “vigorous three-way e-mail dialogue” with Pexton and a Post reporter, with the reader claiming the Post “caters slavishly to Dupont Circle,” a reference to a wealthy Washington, D.C., neighborhood known for its many LGBT residents and also a claim that I bet the Post’s advertising team would be happy to add to its pitches.

The reporter and the reader had an argument about the purpose of journalism:

Replied the reporter: “The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law.”

The reader: “Contrary to what you say, the mission of journalism is not justice. Defining justice is a political matter, not journalistic. Journalism should be about accuracy and fairness.

“Good journalism also means not demeaning conservatives as ‘haters.’ ”

(Both of these people are wrong. The mission of journalism is delivering eyeballs to advertisers.)

The reporter asked to go unnamed, likely because the rules of “objective” mass media journalism forbid him from admitting that he even possesses personal beliefs about the major issues of the day. (Except for when it comes to deficit reduction.) That’s sort of a shame, because we’re really better off if everyone is just totally upfront and transparent about where they are coming from. In this case, the reader is attempting to use those objectivity rules to force the newspaper to print political arguments he agrees with alongside, I guess, any random article featuring gay people. This is an unreasonable request, though I guess kudos for trying.



But the Washington Post is a mass audience newspaper intended for a large coastal liberal readership. It represents the interests and ideology of its audience. So, yes, it’s going to have gay people in the “dating” feature in the lifestyle section of the newspaper, because it would be insane if it didn’t. (The D.C. area has a few separate newspapers for the region’s conservatives, and they are basically angry opinion sections attached to cheaply produced “news” product.) This is also why the New York Times has so many articles about stuff rich people like to do.

James Taranto, an opinion writer for the Wall Street Journal, is outraged at the reporter for having and expressing the opinion. Taranto is primarily upset that this liberal journalist said people who believe, as Taranto believes, that gay people should not have the right to marry are bigots and homophobes, but Taranto devotes much of his column (which is called “Best of the Web Today” for some reason?) to idiotic complaints about the reporter’s lack of “objectivity.” “If you’re a reporter at the Washington Post and you aspire to write unsigned editorials,” be begins, “just send an email to the ombudsman.” Oh no, a reporter’s opinion was expressed, says the professional opinion writer.

Here’s the worst abuse of the word “Orwellian” you’ll read today:

The anonymous reporter, however, goes far beyond bias, and even beyond bad faith–that is, beyond abusing his credibility as an “objective” reporter to further his cause. To judge by his emails to the reader, he has achieved a perfect Orwellian inversion. He has convinced himself that objectivity and bias (or at least his bias) are one and the same thing.

It is funny (or maybe it is ORWELLIAN) how “objectivity” basically always means “excessively charitable to conservative political arguments,” when conservative media people bring it up.

This Post reporter sounds epically full of himself and he believes a lot of dumb self-serving lies about the nobility of the sorry business of newsgathering, but he at least doesn’t believe in the ancient canard of “straight-down-the-middle” objectivity as a self-evident virtue. Pure unbiased objectivity is not merely impossible it is not worth attempting. Most American mainstream media is informed by a bias for representative democracy, as opposed to dictatorship. Most stories in the “objective” news section of James Taranto’s Wall Street Journal are very biased in favor of capitalism, and quite unfair to Communism. I doubt Taranto objects to the fact that Post reporters rarely “make an honest effort to play it straight and be fair to both sides,” to use his phrase, when writing about anti-Western Islamic terrorism. In general, Americans are pro-capitalism and democracy, so its media are, too. In general, Washington is pro-gay, so why oughtn’t its press be pro-gay as well? The Post is not a newspaper for this particular reader. There are plenty of media sources that are intended for him (or her) (probably him).

The National Review gets into it as well, with David French complaining that “it’s astounding how many times liberals say ‘libertarian’ when they really mean ‘libertine.’” Indeed, I am astounded every time I see that. Haha, also: “The sexually libertine leftist lays the groundwork for cultural and fiscal ruin.”

Taranto’s irrelevant moaning about impossible standards of “objectivity” and French’s “oh no the left will bankrupt America with hedonism” both very successfully obscure the actual decent question raised by the original column, which is whether or not the Post has a responsibility not just to “fairly” portray the arguments of people opposed to gay marriage, but whether the Post must portray those arguments in the best possible light. Conor Friedersdorf is conflicted!

I think a true commitment to accuracy doesn’t require presenting the “best” arguments against it. The fact that a few supposed non-bigots have composed “thoughtful” arguments against same-sex marriage doesn’t change the fact that opposition to gay marriage is still mainly based on revulsion and homophobia. In debates and punditry it’s always best to present the best possible form of your opponent’s argument, but if the point of journalism is to describe the world accurately, it’s truer to say that most people oppose gay marriage because they vaguely think it’s gross and wrong than to say that millions of people vote for gay marriage bans because they believe in “a particular sexual ideal” “derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes,” to quote a Ross Douthat column Friedersdorf links to as an example of thoughtfulness.

That Douthat column is honest in ways few gay marriage opponents are about a number of facts that are central to the debate: first, that “traditional marriage” is a modern invention without “natural” or even much historical precedent, and second, that once the tie between marriage and procreation has been severed, there aren’t many compelling arguments for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. If this is the best argument against gay marriage, readers who are presented with it ought to also know that it’s also an argument against allowing divorce, except in extreme cases.

I’m entirely in favor of journalists reading and understanding the best arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples, just as I’m totally in favor of Wall Street Journal writers reading a bunch of Marxist economics, but to pretend that these thoughtful critiques are the driving force behind the anti-gay marriage movement is dishonest.

The real problem for the Post — and it’s also a problem for CNN and the New York Times — is that as long as they maintain a rhetorical commitment to an impossible standard of “objectivity,” they leave themselves open to attacks from a conservative movement that wants its talking points repeated uncritically. The Post can (and should) promise to be fair when it writes about gay marriage opponents, but it shouldn’t pretend to find all arguments on gay rights to be equally valid.

Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>