Dec 26, 2003  |  By: JOE CREA  | COMMENTS     

Gay conservatives and a media watchdog group harshly criticized a New York Times story published Sunday, Dec. 21, claiming the article distorted President Bush’s stance on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and sensationalized the already “complex” and “sensitive” issue of gay marriage.

The article, which appeared as the lead story on the front-page, also used a disproportionate amount of “anti-gay” quotes, activists said.

“I thought I was reading the Washington Times when I read this article,” said Cathy Renna, news media director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The New York Times has “an enormous amount of influence and when they run a story on their front page on Sunday it has a ripple effect. This story ran in other newspapers.”

Renna said that the article was already having a negative impact. Later that day on CNN, Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, debated the Traditional Values Coalition’s Lou Sheldon who called homosexuality a “social disorder” and declared that a marriage is “where the body parts fit.”

“The story basically gave Lou Sheldon another platform to repeat things he’s already said on CNN,” Renna said. “I’m shocked at the New York Times, a paper who has had a good track record of covering our issues.”

Altering Bush quote
The Times story, written by Katharine Q. Seelye and Janet Elder, did not fully report President Bush’s comments made during an ABC News interview last week in which he said, “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.”

The Times article left off the portion of Bush’s comment that said “if necessary,” reporting only that “last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, ‘I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.’”

Bush went on to say, “The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state.”

Gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, a frequent critic of the Times, took the paper to task for editing Bush’s comment and wrote on his blog, “Someone, somewhere at the Times looked at the original statement and consciously truncated it to alter its meaning — in the lead story on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. Then they spun and distorted the rest of the piece to fit. Who will be held accountable?”

New York Times ombudsman Dan Okrent did not return Blade phone calls by press time.

Stephen Miller, editor of the Independent Gay Forum, called the piece “suspiciously sloppy journalism.”

“The New York Times holds standards very high when it comes to quotes and by chopping this off, it gave a misleading picture of a very sensitive issue,” Miller said. “Nuances are important, especially on a politically charged issue like this.”

Misleading headline?
Renna said that the headline of the article, “Strong Support is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage” contradicted the paper’s own poll done in conjunction with CBS News.

The poll found that 55 percent support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but GLAAD said that number was not indicative of “strong support.”

Sullivan noted on his Web site that the “flag-burning amendment was supported by around 80 percent of the public, and the balanced budget amendment by around 85 percent — and yet both failed.” He said that 55 percent was an anemic level of support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Historically, that’s not nearly enough to pass an amendment,” Miller said. “You need an overwhelming consensus to pass a constitutional amendment.”

Anti-gay quotes
Renna also expressed frustration with the amount of “anti-gay” quotes used in the article, none of which were challenged, she argued.

“If you look at the number of vicious, anti-gay quotes in the article, none of them were really challenged by voices from the community,” Renna said.

The Times quoted Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and a Republican, as saying that she believes “marriage should be between a man and woman” and that if she had a gay neighbor, “I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don’t want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right.”

Renna and Sullivan encouraged readers to contact the paper to demand answers.

“Nobody benefits from a sensationalized story,” Renna said.

The Times poll also indicated that 54 percent of respondents oppose civil union laws while 40 percent support such measures. Sixty-one percent opposed gay marriage and 34 percent favored it.

The New York Times/CBS News telephone poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 and involved interviews with 1,057 people.