Star Tribune comes clean
I wonder if it's directly in response to the flood of complaints the Star Tribune must have received following Katherine Kersten's recent columns against 'gay marriage'? Anyhow, they have come clean with an admission (of sorts) of bias — or at least of inadequate and inaccurate coverage of the issue.
This admission appeared in the reader's representative section (Kate Parry), not the editorial, but the message is pretty loud and clear:
The newspaper needs to do a better job fully describing the scope of legislation to ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent...
It's the job of journalists to sniff out spin and do their best to expose it and neutralize the language... But the Star Tribune has done poorly so far this session neutralizing spin on legislation to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and "its legal equivalent" on the fall ballot...
Those words mean the amendment would "clearly include domestic partnerships and civil unions" as well as same-sex marriage... It also allows for judicial interpretation of other rights often associated with marriages that could be banned... This has potential impact on adoptions, inheritance and many other issues facing gay couples...
The newspaper has not made this clear, allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot. It's more likely to get there if lawmakers and citizens believe it applies only to marriages. But that's not the case, and the newspaper needs to quit implying that it is, through the language it uses -- not to defeat or support the bill, but to make sure everyone knows exactly what's up for a vote...
In most stories, the issue is worth at least a paragraph explaining in more detail the potential impact of the "legal equivalent" language on same-sex couples and their families...But it's taken weeks to get to the point where the coverage is even signaling that the amendment is far broader than a ban on same-sex marriages. When an issue is spawning major debate and thousands of Minnesotans turn out for rallies on it, the newspaper should be a place to turn to for clarity.
This goes to the heart of what I've been saying all along on this issue. We need to stop talking about this amendment as if it really has much to do with 'marriage' per se, however that is defined.
Civil marriage is already illegal between people of the same sex in this state, as in most states. The constitutional amendment here, as in other states, is targeted at undermining the legal framework that currently extends certain limited rights to same-sex partners and their families. It's about taking away existing domestic partnership benefits enjoyed by gay families, and permanently prohibiting the extension of any civil benefits (such as those related to adoption, inheritance, health insurance, etc) to same-sex partnered households. It has nothing to do with 'special rights' for homosexuals or with protecting 'traditional' marriages.
While not directly contradicting the ridiculous rantings of Kersten and others, Parry acknowledges that recent Star Tribune coverage has not been neutral, and the newspaper is guilty of 'allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot.'
Thank you, Kate Parry, for bringing this level of honesty to your newspaper's readers. But please tell me one thing, why stop at confession? Now, terminating Katherine Kersten's tenure in the local pages, that would be a real sign of repentance.