WaPo Ombudsman Apologizes For Puff Piece On NOM's Brian Brown

[JackBeck]

The ombudsman for the Washington Post has http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2009/02/25/LI2009022502075.html">posted an apology for last week's glowing profile of NOM's executive director, Brian Brown.

< I >t deprived readers of hearing from others who have battled Brown and find him uncivil and bigoted. To them, he represents injustice. They should have been heard, at length. "In a profile piece, for a controversial figure like that . . . there should certainly be the other side of it," said Fred Karger, head of a group called Californians Against Hate. In retrospect, Style editor Lynn Medford agrees. "The lesson is to always, in some way, represent the other side," she said. Karger, who has fought with Brown over same-sex marriage in California, said, "He is just as shrill, just as anti-gay as any of the leading gay-bashers" have been over the years.

Compounding the story's problems were passages like: "He takes nothing personally. He means nothing personal. He is never accusatory or belittling." These types of unattributed characterizations are not uncommon in feature writing. But many readers thought Hesse was offering her opinion of who Brown is, as opposed to portraying how he comes across. Finally, the headline: "Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile." To many readers, The Post was saying Brown's views are sane. The headline, written by editors, not Hesse, should have been neutral.

The author of the story, Monica Hesse, says she was so upset by the reaction to her story that she wept. Hesse reveals in the above-linked story that she is a bisexual who formerly lived with a woman and that she opposes NOM's policies.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/09/wapo-ombudsman-apologizes-for-puff.html

I looked-up Monica Hesse after this story was written to see who she was really shilling for and was surprised to find a few pro-gay articles previously written by her. It just didn't add up, but now it all makes a little bit more sense. Unfortunately, The Post's apology can't reverse the damage done by the email Maggie Gallagher sent out last week to 'supporters' asking for more money, using this article as a big pat on the back for Brian.

[ruggerson]

1. I love this line:

It's "one of the biggest pieces of crap The Post has published in recent memory," wrote District resident William Grant II. "What's next, a piece on how a KKK leader is just 'someone next door' and 'really a nice person'?"

[WillParkinson]

2. It's not right to compare our haters

to other peoples haters, remember?

[WillParkinson]

3. She wept?

Just like all gays and lesbians wept at the thought of losing their loved ones and families to bigoted people?

So sorry, bisexual or not, you printed a puff piece and somehow you couldn't imagine the reaction people would have?

[imdjh]

4. How is it possible that no one has accidentally beaten the crap out of this guy?

Seriously, anyone who watches the news knows that acts of accidental and biased violence happen all the time- so how is it that they never happen to gay bashers? I seriously want to see some equality there.

[imdjh]

5. In all the years I have been warning people to look out for the ones who seem sane...

... and sound reasonable, that they are much more dangerous than the raving loons, no one has ever misunderstood what I was saying. So how exactly did so many people misunderstand Monica?

Possibly, because she didn't say, "Look out for the ones who sound sane and look normal, they are much more dangerous than the raving loons."?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

6. Aology NOT Accepted!

This POS shouldn't have been printed in the first place.

[plantwomyn]

7. She must have sent out a blanket reply to all her emails.

Here's part of her email reply:
For better or worse, I try to keep my personal views and biases out of any article I write. But since I've gotten several emails from people accusing me of attempting to carry out a homophobic agenda, you may or may not find this useful: My current partner is a man. Before him, my partner of two years was a woman, with whom I discussed health insurance, kids, houses, and marriage. You can bet that I found the fact that our marriage wouldn't have been legal to be wrong. That doesn't mean that what NOM is trying to do and how they are trying to do it are not important to hear about.

Part of my reply follows:
This is article is not journalism. It is dictation with some "artistic license" thrown in for good measure. Your first clue to the fact that your article is biased is the fact that you didn't get the response you thought you would from the "anti-gay" conservatives. You present his view as fact and never question his interpretation of history.

"He takes nothing personally. He means nothing personal. He is never accusatory or belittling. His arguments are based on his understandings of history, not on messages from God that gays caused Hurricane Katrina."
"In short: The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been homosexual relationships. But no society that he knows of, in the history of the world, has ever condoned same-sex marriage."

These are your words and I gather your opinion. Whether a society condones something is not a guage of it's merit and in fact society's condoning and eventual condemnation of slavery is proof.

I am not so inclined to accept the fact of my second class citizenship as "wrong". In fact I don't accept the fact at all.
It may or may not be useful for you to know that my spouse and I were married in Iowa this July. We do not accept that Mr. Brown has the right to codify his religious beliefs. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees our citizenship and as citizens we have the right to equality. The Constitution also protects us from the tyranny of Mr. Brown's and his church's demands to give up our liberty and equality in the name of their god. I have not and would not try to force my beliefs on Mr. Brown. What makes him think he has the right to do so to me and mine?

If you would have included the comments from your email in your article, you may have been able to say that it's possible to come away with the idea that you wrote this from an unbiased position. It's possible but very unlikely. Just reading those unquoted statements, your statements, makes that eminently clear.

What get me about the WaPo "apology" is this from Karger :
The lesson is to always, in some way, represent the other side," she said.

WRONG!
The lesson should be that some who represent the other side should not be given the venue of WaPo to spew their hate.
This is the way the repugs get away with this crap. They demand that the media allow every side of an issue to have a voice. Whether that voice is speaking the truth is inconsequential. One side is the truth and the other side is a lie. What ever happened to reporting FACTS?