devil's advocacy » Media

Mainstream media: Cheryl who?

DA — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:43:00 +0000

As a sidebar to the resignation/firing of HRC Executive Director Cheryl Jacques, it is certainly worth noting that while her counterpart over at the NAACP also stepped down this week under far less dramatic circumstances, the media paid little attention to the ouster of the woman at the helm of the nation’s largest gay rights organization.

With so much of the attention of the media and the candidates on gay rights in 2004, doesn’t it make sense to cover post-election axings?

Finally, some compassionate conservatism

DA — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:49:00 +0000

President Bush declared his support for state-based civil unions on this morning’s Good Morning America, the New York Times reports. Additionally, the President indicated that he was open to the “possibility that nature could be the defining component when it comes to a person’s sexual preference,” softening his original response to the same question in the third Presidential Debate.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President’s rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates’ fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We’ll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts – as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

If I had an arch nemesis…

DA — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:42:00 +0000

CNN American Morning’s Jack Cafferty – who with two exceptions has garnered the most mentions for a non-elected person in DA’s five-month history – brings us this gem this morning:

CAFFERTY: Thank you, Soledad. Ninety-six days is how long it has been since the 9/11 Commission issued its report on how to protect this country from terrorism. And Congress still has been unable to adopt any of the major recommendations. Nada.

Originally, they said they couldn’t possibly act until next year. They said they were much too busy. Of course, they found time then right after that announcement to take six weeks off. Eventually, the House and Senate did pass two bills, but now it looks like they’ll be unable to reconcile the differences before the election next week. And of course, they’ve got to take another recess — two more months. They won’t be back until January of next year.

As usual, Cafferty’s propaganda is an exaggeration in order to “sell” his rant to the viewing public and get them riled up. What it isn’t is accurate. Cafferty had the first part right: CQToday yesterday delivered a eulogy for the bill’s chances of meeting the Nov. 2 goal of completing action, a date that House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) called “an artificial date,” and indicated that they’re looking for a good bill, not a good campaign issue.

What he didn’t have right: Congress will be back in less than three weeks with plans to finish the Intelligence Reform Bill during the lame duck session. Now, concerns do abound, however, about a loss of momentum for the bill when the Congress reconvenes on November 15th with the election (hopefully) two weeks behind them.

Apparently Cafferty isn’t sure his viewers could process that complex bit of information, so as usual, he instead chooses to just go with the old standby of exaggerations and untruths.

If Congress were as accurate as he is, I doubt he’d ignore it.

The many faces of outrage

DA — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:33:00 +0000

Senator Kerry’s reference to Mary Cheney’s sexuality in the third debate is still making headlines this morning, with the Cheney family (sans Mary) filling the screens with talks of indignation. Their displeasure isn’t focused on just the Senator, however – Mary’s sister Elizabeth talked with Paula Zahn last night and denounced Elizabeth Edwards’ comment that her mother must be “ashamed” of her gay daughter to be angry at the mention.

The major problem with the entire debate is that everyone is debating a different angle and their own perspectives. Jack Cafferty’s question of the day on CNN’s American Morning asked “Is it appropriate for Kerry and Edwards to be talking about the sexuality of Dick Cheney’s daughter?” The responses were generally anticipated, save one from “J.R. in Florida”: “What do you think the Democratic reaction of [sic] obesity instead of being gay was the social issue and Bush used Edwards wife as an example?”

This perfectly circles back to the importance of the original question in this debate: “Is homosexuality a choice?” It’s clear that Bush’s answer signals that he either: A) believes that it is a choice, but is hedging his answer to avoid offending the moderates, or B) can’t afford to say it isn’t a choice for fear of backlash from his right-wing base.

J.R. in Florida is the type of folk Bush is speaking to with his non-answer to this central question – people who feel that obesity is a perfect analogy to homosexuality; that who someone is attracted to is as much a choice as whether or not to supersize your value meal.

Regardless of the propriety of Kerry’s comment about Mary Cheney, he succeeded – wittingly or not – in keeping the eye off the ball. The President’s non-answer to this important and central question has been completely glossed over, and we’re focused instead on the fallout of a point Kerry could have made in a number of other ways.

Kerry gave the right answer – it’s an immutable characteristic. Bush gave the answer that protects his base and their crusade to make sure that their discrimination and bigotry is protected. If you admit that it’s not a choice, your case to fight equal rights becomes harder; the right-wing has to be able to hide behind the Bible and their specious “data” that prayer can save the devilish gays.

In the long run, the Bible didn’t protect mono-racial marriages, and it likely won’t protect the viciousness of the right-wing for much longer; but Bush’s answer gives them a little more time.