Shocker: MSM In the Marriage Neutering Tank

In news that should surprise nobody who is paying attention, the "mainstream" media has been shown to be in the tank for neutering marriage. I have previously pointed out that the MSM is lying about the issue.

Taylor Colwell had the Townhall Tipsheet update on this:

The Pew Research Center has released a study examining media coverage of gay marriage during the period leading up to, during, and after Supreme Court hearings on the issue.

In a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations on the subject, the news media coverage provided a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex marriage, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1. In the coverage studied, the central argument among proponents of same-sex marriage was one of civil rights. Arguments against were more varied, but most often voiced the idea that same-sex marriage would hurt society and the institution of traditional marriage.

Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.

This reminds of something Dennis Prager says. Either studies reinforce common sense, or they are flawed. That's a paraphrase.

Of course, when it comes to reporting bias, the perpetual question is whether the media is a molder or reflector of public attitudes. On this matter, though, it seems pretty clear. Reporting bias in the Pew study was 47% in favor to 9% opposed; that study registers present public support as 51% in favor to 42% opposed. Media favoritism for gay marriage far outstrips that of the public at large.

The most common media argument – that this issue is one of civil rights – merits a comparison of the gay marriage movement with that of black civil rights. As I see it, despite superficial similarities, the comparison breaks down once you get to the fundamental nature of the two movements. The black civil rights movement, at its core, was a cause championed primarily on a grassroots level. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins precipitated change that eventually spread to journalism and government. Gay marriage, on the other hand, has not seen collective action on this scale. In fact, the push for gay marriage originated at the top and trickled down, whereas black civil rights was more bottom-up.

Of course, comparing someone self-identifying as homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior NOT being able to get a state-issued license with someone of the same sex to someone who is born with an obvious skin color, the people of which had a legacy of being oppressed through enslavement, segregation, Jim Crow, and publicly supported, well-attended festive lynchings is hardly sensible.

Here's Salon's coverage.

Brent Bozell had a column dealing with this:

In many corners of the liberal media, the space for a social conservative to argue against "marriage equality" is vanishing before our eyes. It becomes twice as difficult the more and more anchors and reporters come out and declare themselves gay, and then the gay lobby expects those journalists to perform with perfect obedience to their agenda.

March in lockstep, or else!

In recent years, the promotion of homosexuality has gone beyond the "news" programs and became heavily entrenched in network entertainment shows, with entire programs devoted to gay characters and their struggle to overcome the alleged ignorance and oppression of religious villains. This easily explains why so many young people are dramatically pro-gay marriage in the opinion polls.

Yup. Homosexual characters are overrepresented on television, and almost always in sympathetic roles.

The official gay censorship lobbies -- from the Orwellian-named "GLAAD" to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association -- define "fairness and accuracy" as being stories that try to scrape "fairness" away, treating opposition like used gum on someone's shoe. GLAAD created what they call the "Commentator Accountability Project" designed to discourage reporters and TV bookers from booking "hate" guests. 

Roll over or bend over. Whichever, shut up and obey. That's what has been going on.

There are nonreligious arguments for maintaining the bride+groom requirement in state licensing, ones that are in no way based on dislike of homosexual people or homosexual behavior, and some of these arguments are made by homosexual people. But you've never know it from the pop media.