Covering the Prop 8 Trial: Can the Gay Press Maintain Objectivity (and Should It)?

Next Thursday - Feb. 25 - I am going to be on a Los Angeles Press Club panel with Andrew Harmon, senior editor for The Advocate, advocate.com and my legally married friend, Ted Johnson, managing editor of Variety and blogger at wilshireandwashington.com. The discussion topic is: "Covering the Prop. 8 Trial: Can the Gay Press Maintain Objectivity (and Should It)?"

Having served on the board of the LA Press Club with Ted, I suspect this topic was selected long before the San Francisco Chronicle published a political column noting the "open secret" that Prop 8 trial Judge Vaughn Walker is gay - which I wrote about citing some facts to counter the spin from the National Organization for Marriage. But the timing is terrific because it may well draw many more straight people who quietly have questions and harbor a lingering doubt about Walker - and our coverage, which is sometimes cited by the mainstream media.

Ted, for instance, blogs about the intersection between Hollywood and Washington and in an Oct. 30, 2008 post, he disclosed that he married his longtime love Stewart Scott:

"A note: I married my same-sex partner last week, it'd be a leap to say that I am neutral on this proposition, although I have tried my best to be fair to both sides in covering this story from the industry angle."

Ted also wrote about their one year anniversary for LGBT POV.

John Rabe, an award-winning member of the LA Press Club (as are Ted and I) and an anchor and reporter for local NPR station KPCC, also wrote for LGBT POV about his marriage. He recused himself from covering Prop 8 after he agreed to let the Pasadena Star News cover his wedding.

Here's how the LA Press Club is framing the debate:

"The Proposition 8 trial underway in San Francisco presents a special problem for gay and lesbian reporters. How do they cover the trial objectively? And frankly, given that many write for the gay community, which has strong feelings on the issue, should they? We're assembled some of the top reporters in town to discuss this and other aspects of one of the nation's most significant trials in the new century."

By the way, not specifically addressed here is whether there is a difference between how we blogged about the trial and how we reported it for our print publications. This became critical after the US Supreme Court ruled that the video of the trial could only be distributed within the district courthouse. Ted, Andrew and I were all at the original May 27, 2009 news conference where the Prop 8 challenge was announced (I asked Ted Olson how the gay community could trust him, given his very conservative background) and we were in court opening day - and then covered thereafter as best we could from other bloggers and reporters and our own sources. Thank heavens the American Foundation for Equal Rights paid for and posted the trial transcripts so we can all be more accurate in our coverage.

I realize the topic of the discussion might seem self-evident and perhaps even insulting to LGBT folks - after all, would you question African American reporters about covering the racially divisive OJ Simpson trial or a divorced reporter about covering any of the myriad of famous divorce trials happening in Hollywood? I remember talking with one black reporter about his early days covering news for the local CBS News affiliate (KNXT at the time) and he told me how his bosses refused to send him to cover the Watts riots fearing he wouldn't be "objective." Today, he'd be one of the first dispatched to the scene to work his sources and report on the nuances unseen by other reporters just parachuting in.

Something akin to that is true for Ted, Andrew and me since we covered the whole Prop 8 campaign and already knew Chad Griffin and Bruce Cohen, two co-founders of AFER.

But that's exactly why such panel discusses as these are important. The Feb. 25 panel will be moderated by Jon Beaupre, veteran radio reporter and anchor for NPR affiliate KPCC and a journalism professor at Cal State Los Angeles. He's also openly gay and was the longtime voice of spot LGBT news coverage for the Pacifica station in LA, KPFK and the long-running show "This Way Out."

Last year Jon moderated another Prop 8 panel I was on - which lead to a political awakening for at least one of his students. I was droning on about how it's important for pollsters to start considering lesbians and gays as a serious demographic in their surveys and this one young woman - who voted Yes on Prop 8 - asked me why we would want to do that? Why would we want to call attention to ourselves like that? I immediately realized she was looking at LGBT people in the framework of sex - not sexual orientation. Activist Robin Tyler, who was also on the panel, explained how we're a civil rights movement. But I spoke to her in terms of "personhood" - now gay people are more than just who we sleep with. Edward Headington captured the exchange and posted it on YouTube:

The discussion will be presented at 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 25, at the Los Angeles Press Club in the Steve Allen Theater, 4773 Hollywood Blvd., one block west of Vermont Ave., in Los Feliz. (Metro: Vermont/Sunset station). Free parking and refreshments. The discussion is open to everyone.

Here's the RSVP info - free for members, $10 for non-LA Press Club members, $50 for membership and two tickets for new members.

 

Comments

[karras1821]

07:41 PM on 02/26/2010

I think religion should be taught in schools or we should be given school vouchers so that we can send our kids to the schools that we want to, with OUR TAX DOLLARS. Or how about MORALS, VIRTUE, and REVERENCE?

[LeeCalif]

03:07 PM on 02/23/2010

Well done !

[Soulmentor]

03:14 PM on 02/20/2010

In any case, how is it even possible for the gay press to be "objective­" on this matter. They have NO responsibi­lity to do so else why are they called the 'gay" press?

[chariotdrvr14]

05:31 PM on 02/20/2010

No more or less than it would've been expected of any civil rights movement to be expected to be "objective­" in its reporting of events.
There's no obligation to eviscerate the passion to see a wrong against a section of citizenry set to right.
Especially when the highest court of the country who would be expected to look out for the constituti­onal rights of ALL americans has acted in such a biased and unequal manner failed in its duty.

[Soulmentor]

03:04 PM on 02/20/2010

As long as they don't deceptivel­y hide their bias, I see no reason for the gay press to give publicity to the "other side" in the name of "fairness" except to show how our arguments counter theirs. That other side, after all, is the very manifestat­ion of unfairness and they get plenty of opportunit­y to present their views in other venues. It's plain stupid to give them any more control of the discussion than they can get in their own venues.

[oafishcad]

09:48 PM on 02/19/2010

No, no no. The purpose of the press is not objectivit­y. The purpose of the press is truth.

[Grada3784]

07:53 PM on 02/19/2010

Why just the gay press? Why not all the press - Christian included?

[oafishcad]

02:27 PM on 02/19/2010

Liberals have this problem. They try and be "objective­". In doing so they seem to give equal weight to any and all ideas, even when those ideas are complete idiocy or downright immoral. That isn't being objective, it's being spineless.

[Peter Danbridge]

03:38 PM on 02/19/2010

I agree to a point.

I wouldn't say this is being spineless, though.

One of the basic principles of liberalism is fairness, and most liberals I know discipline themselves to make sure they don't become TOO biased because of liberal-ba­sed life experience­s, that they rely first and foremost on facts, and out of respect for the facts and for truth, they know they need to be open to hearing differing opinions .

Having said that, at times, perhaps they set themselves up for sabotage by a relentless­ly and willfully stubborn ignorant enemy, in expecting that common ground or a fair exchange of ideas can even take place.

What I've learned about the gay civil rights fight is that gays should be under no obligation to respect the opposition­'s perspectiv­e of disinforma­tion as "a differing opinion." Why not? Because theirs is not merely "a differing opinion." It is stunning disinforma­tion, and at times, malicious misinforma­tion.

(to be continued.­..)

[Peter Danbridge]

03:40 PM on 02/19/2010

(...contin­ued from above)

A perfect example:

"Homosexua­ls shouldn't get 'special rights' just because they chose 'that lifestyle.­'"

That's not a differing opinion. That's a specious argument at best.

(a) We are not asking for "special rights." We are asking to receive the SAME rights as equal taxpayers. No taxation without equal representa­tion, yes? Heterosexu­als can marry the person they love while homosexual­s cannot. There is clear inequity.

(b) Ask any gay - 99.9 % of us will unequivoca­lly tell you that being gay is most certainly not a whimsical "lifestyle­" choice; our orientatio­n is an inherent part of our being and we know this. Why? Because we have lived it - not those who have the audacity to know more about homosexual­ity than we do.

There is one right side and one wrong side in this debate and the side of truth, reason, justice, liberty, and fairness will eventually prevail, but to see this happen we do indeed need to call us "a differing perspectiv­e" as being nothing but lies fueled by ignorance, unwarrante­d fear, and prejudice.

And we know this. So despite criticism, we forge ahead and fight, and ironically it is our progressiv­e self-profe­ssed allies who have often been most critical of our forging ahead, in light of everything our nation is facing.

Our enemies will not let up, so WE cannot let up. Anyone who knows how Conservati­ves operate should understand and respect this, and in doing so, should respect our resolve.

[Peter Danbridge]

04:32 PM on 02/19/2010

CORRECTION­:

(b) Ask any gay - 99.9 % of us will unequivoca­lly tell you that being gay is most certainly not a whimsical "lifestyle­" choice; our orientatio­n is an inherent part of our being and we know this. Why? Because we have lived it - not the heterosexu­als who have the audacity to claim to know more about homosexual­ity than we do.

[BitterReality]

02:12 PM on 02/19/2010

Objectivit­y in the press? Why should gay media be held to a different standard than the rest of the media? There is no objectivit­y in the media.

[oafishcad]

01:59 PM on 02/19/2010

Sometimes being "objective­" is in itself an immoral act.

[BitterReality]

02:10 PM on 02/19/2010

Only to liars and hypocrites­.

[oafishcad]

02:20 PM on 02/19/2010

Really? Why do you think slavery was allowed for thousands of years? Society gave equal weight to the pro-slaver­y opinion in an attempt to be objective. Sorry. You're completely wrong.

[Paulied]

10:29 AM on 02/19/2010

Karen, no one ever asks whether the American media can or should remain objective about terrorist attacks on our country. This is exactly what has happened to the LGBT community with Prop 8 - a group of fundementa­list religious extremists attacked our families and our liberties. How is the gay press supposed to remain objective, and - more importantl­y - why the h3ll should it?

[rf dude]

09:43 AM on 02/19/2010

As long as "they" wear only _FAB-ULOUS­_ if they're on-camera.

(PS - Loved the microphone with the little leather leash...)

[jcwtts1]

08:12 AM on 02/19/2010

You really needed to drag the OJ trial into this discussion­. I mean it is like the LGBT community is tone deaf to any issue that isn't their own. You are fighting for civil rights. When you wish to you evoke the great civil rights trials of the black community, brown v the board of ed, loving v Virginia, when you want to make a point now you use OJ and the Watts Riots. Wow. I mean, just... wow. How about the claim that Gwen Iffle couldn't do the debates because she was in the tank for Obama, a claim that was made by every conservati­ve on the planet two years ago when Obama was running for President. I mean you great examples of black issues are Riots and a Murder trial? Tone. Deaf. Offensive as all get out. Stunning.

Objectivit­y is a myth. No one is objective in their reporting, no one is objective in their reading. The death of print journalism is this theory that we have to be fair an balanced. It is complete and utter bs. Sure there are two sides to most arguments but that doesn't mean that each side has an equal validity. When the Nazi's were on trial in Nuremberg there weren't two equal sides to that argument. There were facts to report but there was also perspectiv­e and context to recreate for readers.

[Peter Danbridge]

12:13 PM on 02/19/2010

"I mean it is like the LGBT community is tone deaf to any issue that isn't their own."

That's a rather frustratin­g and misguided allegation­, albeit understand­able.

Many gays and lesbians are hypervigil­ant in the pursuit of their civil equality because they are well aware of how shrewd, aggressive­, intellectu­ally dishonest, and manipulati­ve much of our opposition is...the campaign against us certainly is all of these things.

So, we remain fixed and focused. We simply cannot afford to be otherwise. It is a matter of self-respe­ct and of survival.

But having said this, let me ask you this. Gays and lesbians are indeed second-cla­ss citizens. Would you even for one day tolerate your second-cla­ss status? Would you tolerate enduring repeated public humiliatio­ns as you saw your partnershi­p's validity put to a popular vote, knowing full well that any joe off the street could vote away rights the Supreme Court has granted you?

(to be continued.­..)

[Peter Danbridge]

12:13 PM on 02/19/2010

(...contin­ued from above)

Being gay and being visible, being vocal, in this cultural debate means facing profound daily indignitie­s and anyone in our shoes would be preoccupie­d with combatting this injustice, not only to make our own lives better, but to make the lives of LGBT youth, and future generation­s, better. Not to mention that undoing this injustice makes our nation more true to its ideals; this is pro-Americ­a activism, not just gay activism.

The comparison to the civil rights struggle of African-Am­ericans says one thing and one thing only: Before us, came African-Am­ericans in fighting government­-sanctione­d discrimina­tion against them, and they were being discrimina­ted against simply for being who they inherently are.

That is the sole comparison­, and frankly, with all due respect, to not take all of the above into considerat­ion before condemning gay people for selfishnes­s and myopia is insulting in and of itself.

Gay activists are passionate about this issue because they're the ones waking up everyday and walking in second-cla­ss shoes, and those like you who don't know what it's like to, say, have your rights voted away by people who have never met you, are really not in a position to accuse them of self-cente­redness. Again, anyone in our shoes would put their own dignity and self-respe­ct as a top priority.

I hope you can take some of this into considerat­ion.

[oafishcad]

08:48 PM on 02/18/2010

By all means, remain objective, that way the fact-free prejudice based side in the Prop 8 argument will have their viewpoint validated.

[writealison]

07:36 PM on 02/18/2010

Karen - thanks for this piece. It provoked an energized conversati­on with my wife. She and I accelerate­d our 2010 wedding into 2008 so that we could have legal status.

I wonder if (assumed) straight reporters are asked to 'check their bias' at the door because they write for presumed straight news organizati­ons? You do raise this in your piece above (connectin­g black reporters to the Watts riots). But I also wonder if the larger issue for LGBT reporters is also the broader range of feelings within the our community about legalized marriage. I've had intense conversati­ons because essentiall­y friends in the LGBT community wonder aloud if my 'marriage' is taking focus from larger LGBT social justice conversati­ons and struggle. However, we have also had another queer couple ask for 'wedding planning advice' given a short timeline and tiny budget.

I just want to say, how powerful it has been to be married. Over the last year and a half as a wedded lesbian, I have found it one of the easiest ways to humanize my wife and I to straight people we don't know. Being able to introduce each other as "my wife" while receiving medical attention at hospitals, in line at Disneyland w/ our "Just Married" buttons, at community events and even as recently as at a family funeral event - reinforces to me all the time that our 'personhoo­d' as LGBT folks is the actual battle we are fighting for.

[Peter Danbridge]

12:29 PM on 02/19/2010

Congratula­tions to you and your wife. This fight is about, above all else, love and dignity. Again, congratula­tions to you both.

[Gogetter]

07:35 PM on 02/18/2010

"...after all, would you question African American reporters about covering the racially divisive OJ Simpson trial... I remember talking with one black reporter about his early days covering news for the local CBS News affiliate (KNXT at the time) and he told me how his bosses refused to send him to cover the Watts riots fearing he wouldn't be 'objective­'. Today, he'd be one of the first dispatched to the scene to work his sources and report on the nuances unseen by other reporters just parachutin­g in."

The objectivit­y of Black reporters/­media has often (and recently) been questioned regarding, among other things:
the 2008 election
President Obama
Michelle Obama

This isn't something that's unique to the "Gay Press". But, that certainly doesn't invalidate the main point of the article.