Calling Bullshit on The Washington Post
On Saturday, the same day that as many as 5,000 - 6,000 people marched from the Capitol Building to the White House in opposition of Prop 8, The Washington Post chose to focus their gay-energies on this article, "Protesters Target Supporters of Gay Marriage Ban," highlighting how some supporters of Proposition 8 have received backlash for their support of the ban on same-sex marriage. That's right, while ignoring any news about the thousands of people across the U.S. peacefully rallying against the passing of Prop 8 on Saturday, The Washington Post chose to lend some support to the supporters of Prop 8!
As I searched for articles about the march on Sunday, I was literally speechless when this article was all I stumbled across. True, vandalism and personal harassment are certainly not most civil way to deal with our anger. However, what about the fact that thousands of people held non-violent protests all around the country as part of a fight for equality? Furthermore, what about the fact that gay people are subjected to vandalism, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and threats on a daily basis, not because of anything we support, but because of who we are? Can I expect more front-page coverage of gay-bashings in The Washington Post? Finally, regardless of their decision to carry the story about pro-Prop 8 backlash, why did The Washington Post stay so mute about the march?
I don't know about you gays, but I'm so baffled by the silence of my favorite newspaper that I may just switch my homepage to the NY Times.
12 comments:
Don't expect support or interest from the Washington Compost. LGBTQ DC has never been one of their constituencies.
"However, what about the fact that thousands of people held non-violent protests all around the country as part of a fight for equality? Furthermore, what about the fact that gay people are subjected to vandalism, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and threats on a daily basis, not because of anything we support, but because of who we are?"
Agreed.
Reading The Post article I wondered how many people have been beaten, murdered, abused, sexually harassed, fired or denied employment, evicted or denied housing, discharged from the military, refused custody of their children, "punished" and "reduced to tears" all because they are Gay.
Where was The Washington Post then? Where was media coverage of the domestic terrorism Gays and Lesbians have endured for (at least) the last 60 years?
Stephanie, the Washington Post was not silent on Saturday's protest, but its coverage was so brief that I'm not surprised you missed it. It's not even a full article. It's that "around the nation" bullshit where you can tell they're just trying to fill space. Instead of a reporter's name in the byline, it is attributed to "news services." I guess we should say thank you to the Associated Press and Reuters, because WaPo sure did drop the ball on this one. At least they sent a staff photographer, instead of totally exploiting the news services.
The Post's "article" is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111502394.html.
(Sorry if the link isn't clickable. I'm not html-savvy.)
WaPo was quiet, and so were the television news outlets. I didn't see a single live truck during the entire march.
Am wondering though, if the news outlets were more concerned with the G20 protests?
I didn't see any WaPo coverage of the G20 protests, but I did see coverage of the G20 menu: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111404092.html.
Jeez Louise! I totally suck at putting links in my comments. Sorry, everybody.
First rule of protests: Don't wear things and plan things that clash with bigger events. Global economic meltdown and G20 meeting will beat anyone else out of the story, even the crazy local news crews.
They are bat shit crazies too. Don't know if you caught the WJLA "SUPR HOTT XCLUSIV OMFG" moment last Thursday about the dangerous experimentation by girls who kiss other girls. That Maureen Bunyan needs to get read.
The WaPo has always had poor local coverage, its focus is international news and politics. Which is also why DC has a larger number of local papers and niche publications you might not otherwise expect.
So what was HRC doing? shouldn't they have contacts in the Press?
"So what was HRC doing?" is always a good question. Always. The answer is that HRC was doing nothing for this day of protest. We did it without them. What else can we do without them?
John, I think we can do anything without them. And everything.
I'm not sure how that article supports the supporters of prop 8 - seemed pretty balanced to me.
There was a video of the protests on the washingtonpost.com front page on the day of the march - not sure where it would be archived.
HRC was known as the HRCF or Human Rights Campaign Fund until 1995. Back then we used to call it the Human Rights Champagne Fund because they never did anything then either.
Post a Comment