More

Allison Kilkenny

Allison Kilkenny

Posted: September 5, 2009 12:44 PM

The Washington Post and "Journamalism"


1. Journamalism: An attempt to report the news marred with shoddy research, fact suppression, or a mere retyping of the press release/talking points.

The Washington Post recently featured a story by reporter Monica Hesse that ran on the front of the Style section in which Hesse profiled Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM was active in supporting California's Proposition 8, which took away gay couple's rights to marry in that state, and the group continues to lead the fight against legalization of same-sex marriage. Hesse's story was called "Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile," giving one a fairly accurate idea of how unbalanced the rest of the article is.

Hesse calls the bigot Brown "instantly likable," a "thoughtful talker," and describes how "he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane." Brown is the guy who claims gay people are demanding "special rights" as they fight for marriage equality. Quite frankly, he opposes gay marriage because he sees gay unions as alien, deviant, and something that must be contained and segregated from sanctimonious heterosexual unions. It doesn't matter how cute his wife is, or how pretty his smile is, this is what the man believes even if he's really "likable," "thoughtful," and "pleasant" while he does it.

The rest of the article carries on in this fashion. At no point does Hesse balance her pathetically worshipful coverage of Brown with testimonials from gay couples, or gay rights advocates. The entire article is essentially a propaganda piece for the National Organization for Marriage.

To Hesse's great surprise, she received a deluge of emails from gay marriage advocates after the article was printed. Worse than Hesse's omission is this comment from her editor, Lynn Medford: "The lesson is to always, in some way, represent the other side."

Yes, Lynn. That's kind of critical to this whole "journalism" thing. A lot of the Post's behavior suddenly makes sense to me. No one told them that shoddy research, fact suppression, retyping press releases and talking points, and totally marginalizing liberal advocates isn't real journalism.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

1. Journamalism: An attempt to report the news marred with shoddy research, fact suppression, or a mere retyping of the press release/talking points.The Washington Post recently featured a story by re...
1. Journamalism: An attempt to report the news marred with shoddy research, fact suppression, or a mere retyping of the press release/talking points.The Washington Post recently featured a story by re...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
05:26 PM on 09/08/2009
It's the Style section of The Washington Post.
Seriously.
Why are you upset that a fair and balanced piece of reporting is not what you got when you chose to read the Style section of The Washington Post?
I already know the front page of The Washington Post is garbage. I am not the least bit surprised to find the paper gets even worse from there.
Please. Do you want to be taken seriously? Get past, "Someone somewhere said something nice about someone I don't like."
Make the case for human rights positively and without whining and it won't be long before hate is something we study in History class.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
02:52 AM on 09/07/2009
I had subscribed to WaPo since the 70's, but they when I saw Ann Coulter in there, I called that very day and canceled.

Before the Iraq war there was a huge rally in Washington DC against it. WaPo mentioned it only on page 17, no photos.

If they go bankrupt, it's their own fault.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
09:02 AM on 09/07/2009
If they go broke it will be a wonderful thing.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
08:26 PM on 09/06/2009
Hey Washington Post! Fox News has a copyright on pseudo-journalism!
07:19 PM on 09/06/2009
No wonder that Slate stopped publishing "Today's Papers". America no longer has any newspapers of record or reliable newspapers. Which former newspaper of record will fold 1st-NYT, WSJ, LAT, McPaper, aka USA Today or the Johnson Family Daily Blute?
No, Chicago's Trib never was a newspaper of record. The Trib was & remains a wretched example of bad a bad a big town blute can get. The Trib plumbs new, ever deeper, nadirs of newspaper publishing & service to its community. The NY Daily News, NY Post & all tabloids won't catch up with the Trib till the Bankruptcy Court & the Trib's trustees fold & liquidate it. The Trib still owns a few papers in 1 paper towns & traditional, but hoary, electronic media which will fold before anybody will buy it. If you loaned money to Sam Zell, you won't recover 1 cent. The Trib's real estate can't & never will be rented again. If you have a demolition business, you can try for the contract to demolish the Trib's derelect or soon to be derelict buildings. Don't bet on it. Local wreckers will underbid you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johan Baumeister
One of those liberal activists
11:25 PM on 09/05/2009
mayoungkin,

This was not a "personality profile." This WaPo article was presented as serious, real news. Yet the writer never challenged several inaccurate statements made by Mr. Brown, such as the one about how same-sex marriage is an entirely new, never-before-heard-of phenomenon.

A simple study of history (Mr. Brown's supposed focus in college) will show you his statement is demonstrably false. Several Native American, African, Mediterranean, and Asian cultures have allowed for arrangements identical to or very much similar to same-sex marriages. Look up berdache or two-spirit people to see how Native Americans handled it. Also look up Emperor Constantine, during whose rule Rome specifically outlawed same-sex marriage. Outlawed it. As in it was legal and not unheard of beforehand.

And while I'm at it, let's take a look at your assertion that 70% of Americans support Mr. Brown's position. Do you happen to have polling data handy? I do. 63% of Americans say it's not the government's business to prohibit same-sex marriage. I'll even give you the link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:59 PM on 09/05/2009
A personality profile doesn't have to have quotes from people who hate the subject's views, so your criticism is non-responsive in the first place.

In the second place, the column in question wasn't as "worshipful" as it was patronizing. Look, the pro-marriage guy is so, wait for it, *normal.* Well, he should be, he represents the views of about 70 percent of Americans.

Bring your A game next time. This column was a prolonged whine that complains about a problem tht doesn't exist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProfessorDuh
09:52 AM on 09/06/2009
If Time magazine wrote a sweet "personality profile" of Mussolini, showing how he liked dogs and babies, would you regard that as good journalism? In fact, of course, the American press did kiss Benito's backside with just that kind of "reporting," an embarrassment they know longer like to talk about for some reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
06:51 PM on 09/05/2009
Well said!
06:03 PM on 09/05/2009
As we all KNOW ; law and rules and priciples are designed to keep the Liberals in line. Any news about a liberal, Democrat, environmentalist or progressive MUST be balanced with the "conservative' point of view. Obviously when a Republican or conservative is in the news then the rule for "balance" does not apply since the conervative point of view is already represented in a positve manner. ( snark!! )
03:22 PM on 09/05/2009
Good call, Ms. Kilkenny. We also saw this same problem with Kelefa Sanneh's recent profile of Michael Savage in The New Yorker; as media critic Eric Boehlert has pointed out, Sanneh's article offered not even one quote from an opposing voice or point of view, while only giving token mention to some of Savage's controversies, and downplaying a lot of the specifics of Savage's bigotry, trivializing those comments (in Sanneh's words) as simply "immoderate." Sanneh attempted to portray Savage as a charming, entertaining eccentric rather than a dangerous purveyor of hate who has, among many other comments, suggested that there is a "war" with gays, and that they are trying to seduce children. The New Yorker has a reputation for quality and extensive fact-checking (as the WaPo also once had), but somehow the New Yorker's editors missed including any significant opposing context.

These articles leave media institutions like the Washington Post and the New Yorker in tacit support of bigotry, and sully the reputations of two major journalistic institutions. Again, thank you, Ms. Kilkenny. "Journamalism" is a good word for these increasingly shoddy practices of mainstream media.