The AP is chronicling President Barack Obama's visit to Africa.
What caught my eye at first was how Obama "clashed with his African host" when he praised the Supreme Court's ruling in support of same-sex marriage.
Obama called the High Court's 5-4 ruling yesterday a "victory for American democracy."
But what surprised me, even in this day where there is little pretense of objectivity, the AP reporter, Nedra Pickler, writes that Obama's clash over gay rights was "a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally."
Isn't Pickler picking sides?
If the court, say, ruled in favor of "Separate But Equal" and Obama visited a post-Apartheid South Africa and praised the court's ruling in favor of segregation, then clashed with his hosts, would the AP write that this segregation movement still has a ways to go?
We think, as Americans, that we corner the market on wisdom and truth.
Why should I have been surprised by this?
What caught my eye at first was how Obama "clashed with his African host" when he praised the Supreme Court's ruling in support of same-sex marriage.
Obama called the High Court's 5-4 ruling yesterday a "victory for American democracy."
But what surprised me, even in this day where there is little pretense of objectivity, the AP reporter, Nedra Pickler, writes that Obama's clash over gay rights was "a sign of how far the movement has to go internationally."
Isn't Pickler picking sides?
If the court, say, ruled in favor of "Separate But Equal" and Obama visited a post-Apartheid South Africa and praised the court's ruling in favor of segregation, then clashed with his hosts, would the AP write that this segregation movement still has a ways to go?
We think, as Americans, that we corner the market on wisdom and truth.
Why should I have been surprised by this?
Because a Pew Research Center recently released a study that found most coverage of same-sex marriage was in support of gay marriage. The Huffington Post takes the "gay wedding cake," according to the study.
The New York Times, reporting on the study, wrote: "News organizations are far more likely to present a supportive view of same-sex marriage than an antagonistic view."
By a margin of 5-to-1 on stories that weren't deemed to be either balanced or expressed no views at all.
The New York Times, reporting on the study, wrote: "News organizations are far more likely to present a supportive view of same-sex marriage than an antagonistic view."
By a margin of 5-to-1 on stories that weren't deemed to be either balanced or expressed no views at all.
"The study lends credence to conservative charges that the nation’s news
media have championed the issue of same-sex marriage at the expense of
objectivity," continued the Times. "Others have argued that news organizations are right not to
overly emphasize opposition to what many see as a core civil rights
issue."
Thoughts?
