BEFORE I BEGIN: The assignment explained to write a blog entry "assessing the current coverage of your topic, addressing the issues GTN raised and any other issues you see emerging."
I didn't find any "timely" articles in the
Grade the News Archives -- they're Archives afterall. So it was sort of hard to find current news broadcasts on something that'd already happened. I was looking for something in the archives about immigration, but instead settled on a "comfort area" of
Gay Marriage.
In the GTN Archives, there was one story:
Chronicle bans two female journalists from same-sex marriage story for marrying each other.
GTN's article was more of a summary of events from "The San Francisco Chronicle" staff. Specifically, the question was whether reporters Rachel Gordon and Liz Mangelsdorf, having been married a few days ago, should continue to cover the same-sex marriage story in light of questions readers could - and do - ask about the newspaper’s objectivity and integrity. In the end, it was agreed they wouldn't because of a conflict of interest.
I respected "The Chronicle" for being willing to even face a tough issue personally with their staff members instead of making an executive decision. They acknowledged several times that their duty to reporting was to The People, and they'd need to uphold the newspaper's objectivity and integrity. They also said that "The Chronicle" already has a written conflict-of-interest policy. Many of the readers do not know newspapers truly do put effort into maintaining the readers' faith in reporting... so it's a breath of fresh air to know "The Chronicle" considers these things personally.
Additionally, "The Chronicle" staff asked for a second-opinion (which increases fairness) from Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism and vice chair of the Committee of Concerned Journalists.
I wonder if Rachel and/or Liz still work for "The Chronicle" now that the heat of the moment has died down...
During the big boom of same-sex marriages in San Francisco in 2004, there were several stories from majoy news companies, but not everyone got all the facts and/or interviewed people from every side. This was a new new phenomenon and for many people, it was the first time we were seeing "normal" gay people on television. It was shocking. What approach should news companies take? The fact-based approach with focus on the procedures? The emotional-approach with the gays' demands for legal love or the protests? Or just glamourize the entire event with flashy colors and paper-thin writing with a story that barely cut the surface? This was new territory and many news companies didn't know if the American People were "ready" to see gays as normal marrying couples.
I remember KPIX, KRON, ABC, and FOX all having the same stories over and over again because they didn't know where to go without stepping on too many toes. For this, I'd penalize them because it was the news companies that ventured out, in my eyes, that showed their true colors and skill in reporting the news right.
GTI covered many good issues of fairness and objectivity with their article, so I went to their source: "
The San Francisco Chronicle." Same-sex marriage was front page news for days/weeks during the events. I acknowledge that San Francisco was definitely more of the audience for the events because it was taking place in our City and because SF is so gay-friendly. But even so, "The Chronicle" had very fair and accurate reporting. It is difficult to dig up the news stories from the archives, but something I specifically remember was their Gay Wedding Album, which documented every single married same-sex couple with names, ages, and a photo. Bringing the love and humanness of the event to the masses.
I saved all my newspapers during this time. They're stacked in my bookshelf behind me. The pages are turning yellow and crispy, but I'm reading them right now. What made the reporting fair in my eyes was the countless stories from every angle. I am using my newspapers as direct reference, and using the links as assistance:
Religious groups anti would run in the same pages as
Wedding Bliss. Additionally, "The San Francisco Chronicle" analyzed itself with
News Analysis stories that examined the reporting reactions.
A few days into the same-sex marriages, the politics kicked in. The marriages didn't lose their luster, but people started to get a little more opinionated. I especially remember the "talking-heads" syndrome of CNN and FOX where people who really new little about the details of the event were speaking as if they were experts... More "news" was opinions and based on someone preaching their faith instead of speaking to actual married couples or their children or families. Nevertheless, "The Chronicle"'s reporting was honest and dedicated.
FOX and CNN disguised their reporting with talking heads which, in my opinion, are not "extra sources." Meanwhile, newspapers covered their bases getting simple quotes for news stories. Most news companies did, however, look at "the big picture" especially when George W. Bush and his Federal Marriage Act came into play. The questions of who was being effected and what may be compromised.
Newspapers focused in on the little stories with lasting effects while giant broadcast companies could have cared less, it seemed. While "The Chronicle" interviewed priests, pastors, teachers, children, same-sex couples, and the average American. CNN and FOX filled their screens with buzzing words and "white balding men" arguing about the downfall of society and no cameras on the people who were really affected. For that, they get a bad grade!
But concerning Diversity, this was a shoe-in. My opinion stands with that of actor Harvey Fierstein: "Any exposure is good exposure." There is less pain in a negative report than no report at all, when it comes to gay news.
