DesertFox
07-15-2006, 10:52 AM
Brent Bozell
Media Research Center
12 July 06
There was the expected wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left when New York’s state Court of Appeals ruled against installing so-called “gay marriage” by judicial fiat, as they had in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. The New York Times, as expected, was stunned that the judges could find a “rational basis” for traditional marriage, and that judges would defer to elected legislators.
This outrage was plastered at the top of the Times with two “news” stories. One was a front-page editorial (they call it a “news analysis”) by Patrick Healy, who focused on the “gay rights advocates” and their disappointment. “Nowhere did gay marriage seem more like a natural fit than New York,” he complained, where “a history of spirited progressivism” should have made the victory of the marriage-manglers inevitable.
Inside the Times, the slant continued with two large photographs of gay activists protesting and consoling one another arm in arm about the court decision. Why not a photo of a traditional marriage supporter celebrating the ruling? Because it seems to be in every national-media rulebook that the “gay marriage” story must be accompanied by gay activists protesting, kissing, cheering, or “marrying.” Only one side matters.
More (http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20060712.asp)
Media Research Center
12 July 06
There was the expected wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left when New York’s state Court of Appeals ruled against installing so-called “gay marriage” by judicial fiat, as they had in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. The New York Times, as expected, was stunned that the judges could find a “rational basis” for traditional marriage, and that judges would defer to elected legislators.
This outrage was plastered at the top of the Times with two “news” stories. One was a front-page editorial (they call it a “news analysis”) by Patrick Healy, who focused on the “gay rights advocates” and their disappointment. “Nowhere did gay marriage seem more like a natural fit than New York,” he complained, where “a history of spirited progressivism” should have made the victory of the marriage-manglers inevitable.
Inside the Times, the slant continued with two large photographs of gay activists protesting and consoling one another arm in arm about the court decision. Why not a photo of a traditional marriage supporter celebrating the ruling? Because it seems to be in every national-media rulebook that the “gay marriage” story must be accompanied by gay activists protesting, kissing, cheering, or “marrying.” Only one side matters.
More (http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20060712.asp)