PressEthic

As a rather fervent proponent of gay marriage, I've long found the issue a rather useful thought exercise: if asked to cover the gay marriage debate, how would I do so fairly despite my strong feeling that gay people should be allowed to marry?

My own feelings aside, my sense is that the conservative side of the debate has gotten short shrift.

The reason is rather complicated.

Imagine a boilerplate story about the gay marriage debate that quotes people on both sides of the issue. That's an easy enough story to write. Use neutral language, allow each side to articulate its points and to respond to the points of the other side, and keep out one's own opinions. Newspapers have produced lots of fair stories like that about gay marriage.

But news coverage aspires to more than giving those who disagree on policy matters a form in which to argue.

As reporters we try to find stories that elucidate the arguments of both sides. And we try to show the impact that policy arguments -- and possible policy decisions -- have on people.

Let's consider how this plays out with regard to the gay marriage debate.

Here is one prominent argument in favor of gay marriage: Fairness demands that gay people be afforded the benefits of marriage -- things like hospital visitation rights, the ability to file joint tax returns, consultation on end-of-life decisions, adoption related benefits, normalized status in civil society, etc.

As a reporter, I'm supposed to help my readers understand that argument -- and all others offered for and against gay marriage -- as fully as possible. Numerous stories suggest themselves. I could write about a gay couple unable to see one another during a medical emergency that nearly killed one. I could profile a gay couple trying to adopt. I could delve into research about how children raised by gay couples are stigmatized at school due to the perceived abnormality of their home situation.

Now let's consider one prominent argument against gay marriage: As a generations old institution between hetereosexual people, marriage has come to serve as the core of our family structure, the best setting in which to raise children and a general bedrock in our society. Expanding marriage to include homosexuals is a significant change to the institution, and we can't fully understand or predict its ramifications. Given its importance, this represents an unacceptable risk.

(This argument is articulated quite well here by Economist writer Megan McArdle -- if you've never been able to grasp the non-bigoted anti-gay marriage argument, I recommend it.)

What stories might a reporter write who is trying to elucidate that argument for readers?

They're harder to think of, largely because the inequities liberals complain about exist already, while the future ill effects that conservatives worry about don't yet exist.

Perhaps that's one reason why you see lots of stories that help readers to explore the aforementioned argument for gay marriage, and precious few stories that help readers to explore the aforementioned conservative argument against gay marriage.

I think this dynamic characterizes the media's relationship to liberalism and conservatism generally, insofar as conservative arguments are often about the importance of proceeding cautiously when tinkering with social norms, and liberal arguments are often about using government to change aspects of society -- liberals would argue that they are flaws -- that the market and/or individuals haven't yet addressed.