PressEthic

With all our current discussion on the inevitability of bias in the media, I found it beneficial to read an article dealing with a controversial issue that addresses both sides fairly. It has been argued by various conservative outlets that the Associated Press perpetrates bias in its reporting, but in the September 30th article, "Wisconsin Gay Marriage Battleground" by AP reporter David Crary, I cannot locate such a bias. The issue of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage has been an especially fervent topic since the 2004 elections. This is the kind of issue that generates vehement support and opposition. Neutral voices on the subject are rarely heard. That is why I immediately recognized the balance of the article.

I found the article on Salon.com, but it was used by various media outlets, from ABC news to the Washington Post, to FOX News. In the article, Crary quotes both supporters and opposition of the proposed Wisconsin state amendment to ban gay marriage. By including quotes from the opposition not just from gay marriage supporters, citing civil union restrictions that would affect straight families as well, Crary was able to establish the debate on the legal issue as well as the social one.

As a strong proponent for legalizing gay marriage, I made a conscious effort to read the article with a critical eye, seeking out any bias. Based on my own view of the issue, certain quotes from amendment supporters incensed me, but not because it was sensationalized, rather because it was a clearly stated belief that I happen to strongly disagree with. The quotes themselves were presented fairly and directly. Providing both sides of the story lends more strength to both sides of the argument. No matter on which side of an issue your interests lie, reading or viewing a story presented one-sidedly does not incite change. By presenting opposing views, the concerned reader can be left informed and motivated. The presence of the voice of the opposition, whichever side that may be for the reader, incites the reader to react and creates a more informed public.

Although I may agree with the base content of reports that are biased towards the left, I, as a self-proclaimed liberal, find myself cheated. On social issues like gay marriage, representation by both sides is necessary in the media to inform the public of the points of the debate. If I don't know what the opposition is saying, how can I refute them? If I were to read only articles that included viewpoints I agreed with, it could lead to complacency. Informed knowledge of the opposition fuels the fire of activism.