Quantcast
U.S. & World

Pew study: News media inserted bias into gay marriage debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 21, 2013 7:09 p.m.

    re: Stalwart Sentinel pg 3

    Lets not forget other areas of technological innovation (Boston, Austin, Seattle) are *somewhat liberal*

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 21, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    to lost in DC 12:52 p.m. June 18

    But, nobody expects The Spanish inquisition? the Dark Ages? The Taliban? The Albigensian crusades? The other crusades? Burning the library at Alexandria?

    p.s. we would not expect anything religious to evolve; would we? Well, not in the last 6 millennia anyway.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 21, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "nobody is harmed"

    Your claim doesn't make it true, Red.

    Also, public safety is about the RISK of harm, not the CERTAINTY of it. For example, I may drive home drunk and get there safely -- but that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legal.

    Here are excerpts from what Chief Justice Baumann said when he reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban in 2011:

    -- "..women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    -- "The prevention of collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial..."

    -- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    Once again: the courts understand these distinctions, even if you do not.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 21, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    @Redwings --

    "I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a biological fact that is not and never will be changed. "

    If your purported "biological fact" is irrelevant to morality, then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

    "Homosexuals use the body in ways it was not meant to be used."

    Once again, you can't distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on this basis. Heterosexuals engage in the very same acts that homosexuals do.

    Also, you're once again inserting morality. The terms "meant" and "incorrectly" are loaded with moral subtext.

    There is no "incorrect" or "correct" way to use a body, in biological and/or scientific terms. There are harmful ways and unharmful ways; there are productive ways and unproductive ways; there are efficient and inefficient ways; and so on. But terms like "incorrect" and "meant" only enter the picture when you insert religion and/or morality into the argument.

    You might as well claim that portacaval shunts or tracheostomies are "incorrect", since the body was not "meant" to be used in those ways. You might as well claim that rib grafting, used to create replacement ears, is "incorrect".

    Sorry, but those terms just do not apply.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 21, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" but in the scenario that I proposed for the redefinition of "marriage", nobody is harmed, so your comparison to human sacrifice is wrong. Why is it ok for 2 people to be married, but not 3, 4, 5, or more?

    The arguments for gay marriage come down to just a few basic themes:

    1. They want to marry the person they love.
    2. They want the same benefits as a heterosexual couple that has married
    3. The government has no business telling them what they can and can do in their bedroom.
    4. Equal rights.
    5. They were born loving multiple people.

    Using those requirements for marriage, how can you deny that if you allow homosexual marriage that plural marriage is wrong? It meets the same criteria.

    You say that plural marriage is illegal because the voting people wanted it that way. In California the voters said NO to gay marriage, but the unelected courts are changing that.

    So again, if you allow gay marriage, you must allow any other union to be called marriage.

    If you disagree, explain why 2 people that love eachother can be married but 3 wrong.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 21, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "Read "Man and wife?...""

    That study (actually a US study) looks at STRAIGHT stable homes vs. STRAIGHT unstable homes. It doesn't mention gays/lesbians/homosexuals/same-sex couples even once. Yup, I've got the full study.

    Keep trying, Red.

    "Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" "

    Kurtz (the author) made several untrue or misleading claims. Here's a few facts:

    1. unwed mothers in the Netherlands have actually been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the 1970s -- looooong before registered partnerships. There's a graph of this at procon.org, if you want to look it up.

    2. the change in unwed mothers before and after partnerships was the SAME, in the same years, as other European countries that did NOT have partnerships.

    3. Scandinavian countries that have partnerships ALREADY had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European countries BEFORE the partnership laws.

    4. heterosexual marriage rates actually INCREASED after partnerships in those Scandinavian countries. As of 2004 (the date of Kurtz's article), Denmark had its HIGHEST marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriage rates than before the partnership laws.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 21, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    I seem to be having trouble posting this afternoon. I'll answer the second part of your post now -- I'll have to re-create my previous answer to the first part of it.

    "who is to say what defines a marriage anymore."

    The same people who "say" it now -- the laws passed by the voting populace, the Constitution, and the courts.

    "If the only requirement is that consenting adults...desire of their own will to be married, who are you to say that it is wrong."

    Ahhh, nobody ever said anything about "the only requirement". Marriage laws, just like any other laws, are subject to our country's entire BODY of laws and its Constitution.

    For comparison: human sacrifice is not legal. Even if the prospective sacrifice consents to being thrown into the bonfire to worship whomever, it's still not legal. Why? Because our other laws forbid harming human beings in such a manner.

    The courts already recognize this distinction, Red. It doesn't matter whether *you* do, or not. They do. And I trust them to know a heckuva lot more about the laws and Constitution than you do.

    Stay Tuned for the other part.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 21, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @ plainbrownwrapper

    You and amazondocs seem to read into my post more than is there. I never stated a moral argument. I simply stated a biological fact that is not and never will be changed.

    Homosexuals use the body in ways it was not meant to be used. That heterosexuals do so as well does not change the biological fact that the body is being used incorrectly from a biological standpoint

    I did not state a position for or against gay marriage, etc. I am simply pointing out the fact that homosexuality is not in line with biology and physiology.

    I am simply trying to point out that no matter how much we as a society try to shift the meaning and nature of things, there are some things that cannot be changed. That reality should be acknowledged and included in the debate.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 21, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" you asked for it.

    Read "Man and wife? That's best for baby" from the The Age (Austrialian Newspaper) There they report on a study performed in Austrialia looking at what is best for children.

    Read "Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" in National Review. In this one they show how since Gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands the number of marriages has significantly dropped and the number of children being born to unwed mothers is increasing.

    Now, as for the redefinition of marriage. If the gays say that they just want the right to marry the person that they love (actual argument), who is to say what defines a marriage anymore. If the only requirement is that consenting adults (this counters your polygamy argument since it is based on teen girls being assigned a husband) desire of their own will to be married, who are you to say that it is wrong. The only requirement is to love eachother. So, why can't 1 man and 4 women be married if they love eachother and desire it? Why not 2 bixexuals, 1 hetersexual man, and 1 hetersexual woman?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 21, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "the ideal situation for children to be raised in includes both a mother and a father."

    Nope. Studies actually indicate that the ideal situation for children is to be raised in a stable household with two parents. Studies have never shown that children grow up better in stable straight homes than in stable gay homes.

    "In places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a rise in unwed mothers."

    Balderdash. Show me any evidence that gay marriage is actually linked to unwed mothers.

    "you must also redefine marriage to accept plural marriages, and any other definition..."

    Nope.

    1. Polygamy conveys known, concrete risks to women and children. The courts already recognize this fact, even if you don't. And public safety has always been a valid legal reason to limit personal freedoms.
    -- This principle has already been tested, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, based on this argument.

    2. Incest and pedophilia harm children. Refer back to the public safety argument above. Also, children are incapable of giving informed consent -- which is essential for legal contracts.

    Your arguments all fail, Red. Keep trying.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 21, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" there are arguments against gay marriage. Here are some of them.

    Children need both a mother and a father. Studies indicate that the ideal situation for children to be raised in includes both a mother and a father. (yes some couples are infertile, but adoption is always an option)

    In places where gay marriage has been adopted, there is a rise in unwed mothers. Unwed mothers are more likely to live in poverty than women who are married before giving birth.

    If you redefine marriage to accomodate the gays, you must also redefine marriage to accept plural marriages, and any other definition that people can come up with.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 20, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    @Redwings --

    "Humans are subject to death, which is a biological process. Are you suggesting otherwise?"

    We're working on it. ;-)

    In the two thousand years since Christ, life expectancy has increased from 28 years to 67 years (worldwide average). We have cheated death of millions of victims it formerly took by many diseases as well as traumatic events.

    Much of human medicine would have been regarded as witchcraft and unnatural in Christ's time. Healers **have** been condemned and killed as witches through the ages, simply because they did things which other people thought were "unnatural" or "not biologically correct".

    "Homosexuals use part of one system as a substitute for another."

    So do many heterosexuals. Are those heterosexuals therefore evil?

    "Two homosexual males can NEVER make a biological child. "

    Neither can infertile couples. Are their marriages therefore invalid?

    "Human do not fly. They sit in a device of their invention which flies. That device is not biological."

    LOL!

    Would you feel better about homosexuals if all their interactions were carried out with the aid of artificial devices? Those are available, you know. ;-D

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 20, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" fortunately for us, you are wrong about what got us out of the depressions.

    Read the following articles:

    "How Government Prolonged the Depression" WSJ

    "Contrary to popular myth, FDR prolonged agony of Depression" DN

    "Great Depression" Library of Economics and Liberty

    "The Great Depression" at the VonMises Institute

    "The New Deal Debunked (again)" at the VonMises Institute

    Economists and businessmen agree that the government made things worse. Do you know more about economics than the economics people who wrote those articles?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 20, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    @ amazondocs: "There is no such thing as "biologically correct", btw. Biology is not morality, and humans are not slaves to biological design."

    Humans are subject to death, which is a biological process. Are you suggesting otherwise?

    There are specific biological systems in the human body. Homosexuals use part of one system as a substitute for another. I did not make the rules, and neither did you. Two homosexual males can NEVER make a biological child. That is a fact that will never change. No court, public opinion poll, legislation, or "evolving on the issue" will ever change it.

    Human do not fly. They sit in a device of their invention which flies. That device is not biological. To say that human are not slaves to bioloical design is a delusion.

    I am sorry that reality does not conform to your opinions.....

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    June 19, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Oh dear Deseret
    How irony is lost on you.

    For a survey of news by Pew
    You generate your own duplicitous headline.

    Penalty-free persecution: your new self image.
    Pain-free martyrdom: your new ladder to heaven.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 19, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    Redshirt

    1920 DJIA high: 109.88. 1921 DJIA low: 63.90. Percentage lost: 42%.

    1929 DJIA high: 381.17. 1932 low: 41.22. Percentage lost: 89%.

    2007 DJIA high:14164.53. 2009 low: 6547.05. Percentage lost: 54%.

    Please stop getting your news from the right wing blogosphere. You're not an intern and I'm not here to give you on-the-job training.

    Further, the 1920 losses were not nearly as large (net) so had a much smaller affect on our economy. What's more, the lax regulations put into place during the tenure I note above is what allowed for the speculative gains made during the Roaring 20's which caused the DJIA to artificially balloon nearly tenfold. Just like in 2007-08, conservative policies in the 20's set the stage for the fall.

    Finally, you claim progressivism prolonged the Great Depression, I claim it got us out. I guess the fact that America's most promising times (50's, 60's) were under the largely uninterrupted control of both Houses by the more progressive party spanning 1933-81 along with long spans (such as FDR) of Democrat Presidents would mean the American people agree with me.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 19, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    @Redwings --

    "Except for the fact that heterosexuals use their bodies in a biologially and physiologically correct way and homosexuals do not."

    LOL!

    The acts engaged in by homosexuals are enjoyed by many heterosexuals as well. Does that make heterosexuals evil?

    There is no such thing as "biologically correct", btw. Biology is not morality, and humans are not slaves to biological design.

    To compare: airplanes are not "biologically correct". Human beings were not biologically designed to fly. Are airplanes therefore evil?

    Artificial hearts are not "biologically correct". Are they therefore evil?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 19, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    @ RanchHand: "The "homosexual lifestyle" is identical in every other regard to the "heterosexual lifestyle". Live and learn"

    Except for the fact that heterosexuals use their bodies in a biologially and physiologically correct way and homosexuals do not. Unfortunately biology and physiology cannot be changed by court decision, the media, or by calling them "bigots".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 19, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @ulvegaard;

    If you do not agree with a particular "lifestyle", you are perfectly free to not engage in that particular "lifestyle". You do NOT have the right to tell other people what they may or may not do simply because you don't approve.

    BTW; religion is a "lifestyle", sexual orientation is an orientation, not a "lifestyle". The "homosexual lifestyle" is identical in every other regard to the "heterosexual lifestyle". Live and learn.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 19, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    To paraphrase what a previous poster said - it is the law of supply and demand. There is more demand for the liberal perspective rather than the conservative perspective and that ought to have the conservatives seriously concerned about the message they are trying to get across.

    Don’t blame it on the media – without the greater demand for a liberal perspective - there would be no supply.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 18, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    The point is, we are constantly being led to believe that 'everyone is doing it' and that ideals have so radically changed in this country by masses that in order to be current, we need to all surrender our personal standards and beliefs or be branded as anti-social and anti-progressive.

    People have a right to know that they are not alone in their convictions and that it is okay to maintain personal opinions. If I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle, that doesn't make me a bad or out-dated person and it is not the right of the media to invent statistics to suggest that I am.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 18, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" the depressions that you are referring to didn't start until liberals started to "fix" the system. The truth of the matter is that the crises you list could have been resolved without the mass suffering. Take the 1920 stock market crash. In terms of percent loss, it was worse than the 1929 crash or the 2008 crash. Why is it that the 1920 crash is little more than a foot note, and the 1929 and 2008 crash are historical moments of great suffering? The answer is simple. Progressivism. The 1920 crash had virtually no government response other than to cut taxes AND cut spending. The 1929 and 2008 crashes had government jumping in to "help" and to get things going again.

    So, again, if progressivism is so great and does not lead to disaster, then why is it that the 2 bad recessions lasted so long under Progressive leadership, and 1 recession that was worse lasted so short under conservative leadership?

    Doesn't that indicate that conservative principals work, while progressivism doesn't?

    If Progressives are not looking towards socialism, why is it that so many of their programs nationalize things or provide universal welfare? Aren't those socialist things?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 18, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    @Tators --

    "They are only reporting what the Pew study indicated."

    Let's try to look at the actual facts for just a second here.

    The Pew study actually indicated that mainstream media stories were 47% favorable for gay marriage -- while public opinion polls are **51%** in favor of gay marriage.

    Hmmm. Mainstream news reported with 4 percentage points LOWER overall favorability than public opinion polls show.

    That supposed "unfair bias" doesn't look quite so impressive now, huh?

    The ONLY difference was that more mainstream media reports tended to be mixed rather than outright negative. And that's because -- as the study itself reports -- the opposition position doesn't have a clear message -- NOT because the media is biased.

    I do see one obvious example of bias here.

    @SCfan --

    "This was a PEW study."

    The Pew study itself doesn't mention the word "bias" even once.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 18, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    To "Ragnar Danneskjold" no, I did not say that. I just find it ironic that they would claim that truth has a liberal/Progressive bias, when liberals/Progressives are historically known to use lies and false statements to push their socialist adgendas. Do we accept a liar's word that what they claim is the truth

    Also, FYI, liberals/Progressives are not political parties, but are philosophies or ideologies.

    I don't trust anybody in politics. There are some that are more honest than others, but none tell the whole truth all the time.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 18, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    Redshirt - Excellent point, I forgot we progressives have a "socialist adgenda" (sic). Considering the world's private banking sector (NYC), entertainment industry (LA), and technology industry (Silicon Valley) are all located smack dab in the middle of the most liberal strongholds in the US, we must be the worst socialists to ever exist. You really thought that one through.

    You want actual "adgendas" (sic) that have proven disastrous? There have only been two times in the last 100 years in which conservatives controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Immediately following one of those tenures we suffered the Great Depression, immediately following the other we suffered the Great Recession.

    Start on day one of humankind and chart the "conservative" viewpoint versus the "progressive" viewpoint and as knowledge, information, technology, and education increase, that society becomes more progressive. Truth has a liberal bias.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 18, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    I wonder what the results would have been if Pew Research just looked at Deseret News stories.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 18, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    @lost in DC --

    " I rarely use God as my own argument. "

    Really?

    I occasionally save a few of my own comment posts for future reference. Here's just a couple of things I've responded to from your posts in the past.

    Lost: "He told the women to go her way and sin no more."

    Lost: "I see you choose to ignore the numerous biblical references that condemn homosexuality. "

    Lost: "sin remains sin."

    Yup, those were you.

    Lost: "True religious values do NOT evolve"

    Then I'm sure you'll be happy to stone everyone who gets divorced and remarried. That's adultery, according the Bible -- and adulterers get put to death. Right?

    Lost: "that homosexuals have less right to marry than anyone else. The same rules apply to all."

    "Black people have the same right to marry as anyone else. They can marry people of their own race just like white people can."

    That argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work here.

  • Ragnar Danneskjold Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    So Redshirt1701, are you saying that "liberals/progressives" are the only ones that lie to get people to accept their policies? Grow up. Anyone that believes that either party has the exclusive on dishonest policy makers who only look out for their own interests is painfully naive.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    June 18, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Some of you seem to be shooting the messenger, namely DN. This was a PEW study. Read the article. Disagree with PEW if you want, but it sounds, from what some are posting, that you want same sex marriage to be accepted by 99% of the people, and any opposition is not legitimate.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 18, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" truth has no bias, it just is. The ironic thing is that liberals/progressives have the hardest time accepting truth when presented with it.

    For example, if truth has a liberal/Progressive bias, why is it that when Progressives start pushing their socialist adgenda, they have to lie to get people to accept their policies? If what they are saying is the truth, why hide it? Could it be that the truth has no bias, but the truth is that liberals/progressives have an adgenda they are trying to promote that historically has proven disasterous? Isn't that an unbiased truth that is ignored because of the inability of liberals/progressives to accept the unbiased truth?

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 18, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    Candide -

    Secular values based on Reason and the Golden Rule break down as quick as you describe morals based on religious dogmas. With differences in cultural beliefs and in a globally communicative world whose Reason is the authority? Whose idea about how to implement the Golden Rule should be the standard?

    The Golden Rule and Reason have merit, but so does religious dogma in spite of the fact that people interpret what God wants differently.

    Also, Reason alone cannot prove there is a God, but it cannot disprove God's existence either. Your statement "the supposed whims of a non-existent deity" is only your opinion and therefore weakens your argument.

  • Ragnar Danneskjold Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    So, you think that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else? What are the same rules that apply? You are going to have to explain this to me.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    RanchHand
    sorry to see you having to resort to untruths. I rarely use God as my own argument. Not to say never, but rarely.

    Of course, you could not argue with what I said, so you made something up. Typical.

    Candide,
    Nope, sorry to disappoint you. True religious values do NOT evolve, unlike secular. The secularists believed in slavery (Rome, Africa, etc), state supremicy over the individual (USSR, China) and ruling classes who could kill others with impunity (feudal Japan, Rome). etc.

    Ragnar Danneskjold
    The lie? That homosexuals have less right to marry than anyone else. The same rules apply to all.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 18, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Truth has a liberal/progressive bias - that is what conservatives forget. From heliocentrism to evolution to civil rights to LGBT rights - conservative, religious-based politics are wrong time and time again.

    Not all arguments are created equal and therefore not all arguments ought to be afforded the same level of credence when a topic is being discussed. If Fox News considers my "right" to project my personal, moral beliefs onto others in equal weight with a fundamental right for all protected by the COTUS, that is not being unbiased, that is being demonstrably incorrect.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @lookup
    Abraham Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address discussed the fact that both sides in the war believed that God was on their side. This is even more proof that secular values are a better determinant of morals. If you have two sides, both being made of groups of Christians, that are diametrically opposed to each other, both claiming they are in the right, how do you choose which is right? Obviously it can't be based on religion because both groups had their pious members and assertions of God's blessing. You must therefore base morality on something other than religious dogma. I purport that the Golden Rule and reason are a much better basis for morals. As for Wilberforce and Rev. King, they were men that fought for freedom and civil rights and they believed they were doing what was right and what God wanted. There were lots of others doing the same thing that were not religiously motivated. Also, there were other men at the time that believed the exact opposite and that they were doing what God wanted. Again another reason to base morals not on the supposed whims of a non-existent deity, but on reason.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 18, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Point made. Previous comment pointing out the DN's own bias was not printed.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 18, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    What every liberal here is forgetting is that the press is supposed to be unbiased. There shouldn't be articles supporting or opposing gay marriage. What should be outraging everybody is that only 44% of the time were articles neutral.

    No matter what the bias is of the press, shouldn't we be more upset that there is a bias at all?

    Why is it that the Press has allowed themselves to be corrupted to the point where they are little more than a propaganda arm of the Progressive movement?

    The funny thing about all the liberals and their complaints is the simple fact that Fox News is the least biased new source, yet they hate Fox.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 18, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    It is good to see all the independant thinkers and the Deseret News who aren't buying into the political dogma that is being forced down our throats everywhere we turn.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    I wonder how the local papers would score in this.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    June 18, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    lookup,
    Nice points and information. Thanks.

    Blue
    You simply lifted the comments from the Pew Study that favored your opinion and then editorialized with your own interpretations.

    The pro-gay marriage message appeared more consistent because the news outlets adopted the message provided to them by its supporters. The article also mentions that the news outlets did NOT report the primary talking points of the opposition, even when they were agreeing with them. That is voluntary filtration and bias and is NOT reporting the facts, as you claim.

    The disparate coverage (i.e. bias) is clearly outlined in the report and news outlets were more than willing to carry the message fed them by gay-marriage proponents.

    And from the article: "During the week of the hearings, when most of the coverage occurred, the media offered many profiles of the plaintiffs or members of the LGBT community with few voices of opposition mixed in."

    Is that not the very definition of biased coverage?

    How many major newspapers in California carried editorials in favor of Prop 8? None.

    The media bias has always been there as they continue their efforts to tell us how to think.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    lookup, I didn't say the original article ended with the quote I offered. I said (correctly) that it was the _conclusion_ reached by the researchers.

    Yes, the article's final words are what you offered: "Finally, commentators who favored same-sex marriage, such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, spent more time discussing the issue than commentators who opposed it, such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly."

    Now then, would you expect liberal commentators to _not_ spend as much time in favor of marriage equality as conservative commentators? Is it "bias" that FOX pundits spend less time talking about a social issue on which they know they have the losing position?

    More to the point, the Pew research isn't really about left vs. right commentary. The research differentiated between commentary, news stories, and social media. Again, that's _reporting_ news, not bias.

    And when you say, "I think 'marriage destruction' would've been more appropriate (according to LGBT activists themselves)..." I have to ask you, are you serious?

    Exactly which pro marriage equality activists are advocating "marriage destruction?" Name them.

    All you're doing is proving why those opposed to marriage equality are losing.

  • lookup Selah, WA
    June 18, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    @Candide

    Yeah -- just like Lincoln was inspired by "secular" views to end slavery in the US (you might want to read the 2nd Inaugural Address). Or William Wilberforce, in Britain, was moved by "secular" values to end the slave trade (you might want to read his biography). Or the REVEREND Martin Luther King, was inspired by "secular" ideas to lead the Civil Rights Movement (you may want read three of his biographies and learn about his religious training). I love it when people rewrite history to suit their viewpoint.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 18, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Don't blame the Deseret News for this story that doesn't enhance the pro-homosexual marriage stance. They are only reporting what the Pew study indicated. The Pew study reported that twitter and other social media have shown a difference in public opinion on this controversial subject within single digit percentage points... relatively close.

    And yet national newspaper reporting have printed 5 times the number of articles in favor of homosexual marriage than opposed to it... not relatively close. Since the slant of these articles isn't even remotely correlated to the public opinion divide, then yes, there is definitely a bias by that segment of the media. And that bias is toward homosexual marriage.

    It's the responsibility of newspapers to be neutral and balance their reporting with some type of correlation to public opinion. That hasn't happened in this case. As such, a bias has definitely been shown. Don't attack the messenger for pointing that out.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 18, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    This article does make me laugh --

    Here we have the obviously and heavily biased DN, criticizing other media outlets for supposedly exhibiting bias?? BWAhahahaha.

    It would be interesting to see just how many articles the DN has published opposing gay marriage, and compare them with DN's *pro*-gay-marriage pieces. Anyone wanna take bets on where the vast majority of them would fall?

    As for mainstream media -- most mainstream articles on racism would be against racism. Here's a hint for you: that isn't because the media is unfairly biased against racists. It's because racism IS WRONG.

    Keep reading and rereading the quotes that Blue posted, until the message sinks in:

    ----------

    "Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those arguing against."

    That would be because equality is an easy and honest message to share. Opposing equality based on irrational fear is always going to be a tough sell.

    The Pew article concludes with this, "The findings show how same-sex marriage supporters have had a clear message and succeeded in getting that message across all sectors of mainstream media."

  • lookup Selah, WA
    June 18, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    @Blue

    The article did not end with the statement you quoted -- and most of this article quoted the original article verbatim.

    It ended with "during the week of the hearings, when most of the coverage occurred, the media offered many profiles of the plaintiffs or members of the LGBT community with few voices of opposition mixed in. Finally, commentators who favored same-sex marriage, such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, spent more time discussing the issue than commentators who opposed it, such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly." Which provides two examples of how the media increased momentum for same-sex marriage acceptance or in the words of this article, inserted its own bias. Is it really so different?

    And just because a cause has a slick slogan like "equality" doesn't mean that's what they stand for or that they are right. It may just mean they are good marketers. I think "marriage destruction" would've been more appropriate (according to LGBT activists themselves) but that isn't such a good sell in the media, is it?

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 18, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Perhaps there is 5 to one public support of equality in marriage. Simply reporting reality. With this topic I've noticed that any organization or group that comes out against equality in marriage is given a lot of coverage. Is that bias?

  • Ragnar Danneskjold Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    I'm curious what "lie" lost in DC thinks that the gay marriage supporters are using?

    As for the article, not only is the study misrepresented, but these studies can be highly inaccurate or biased themselves. Just look at their assumption. If I write an article talking about the issue of gay marriage, it seems perfectly reasonable to give the justification for the requests of the group. But if equal time isn't given to the opposition, it is biased? It just ignores the way that news stories are structured.

    The news may be biased, but even more than that, they are lazy. There are very few well thought out articles where both sides of an issue are presented in an unbiased manner. If similar research was done on any number of subjects, results would be "biased" to whatever is the subject being discussed, or the issue of the day.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 18, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    There is something very telling here but it is not what conservatives think. The troubling issue here is that conservatives have a woefully inferior argument but expect equal treatment. I'm sorry but personal religious convictions are not sufficient justifications to keep two loving, committed people from exercising their Constitutionally fundamental right to marry one another. I'm sorry but when God told Noah in the OT that He'd never flood the world again is not on equal footing with the painfully overwhelming majority of climatologists. I'm sorry but personal religious convictions are not on equal footing with a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. I'm sorry but your unfounded belief that the US government will one day turn tyrannical is not justification to overcome gun regulation that has been deemed constitution by the SCOTUS.

    The problem here isn't the media, the problem is that conservatives choose the wrong side of nearly every single issue, be they social, economical, or judicial, and then they expect us to treat those arguments as though they have merit.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Lost in DC-If you believe the Bible to be true you must already believe in infanticide and non-traditional marriage. Have you even read the good book? It is full of infant murder-killing children because they made fun of a bald man(Kings 2), killing all first born sons(Exodus), killing entire cities, including men women and children(Leviticus, Exodus, Judges and many more). As for traditional marriage, how many wives do you have, how many concubines, did you marry you brothers widow?
    Secular values, like equality, liberty, and justice are the ones that have shaped this country and will continue to do so for the betterment of all people. Religious values have changed due to the more enlightened views of people that no longer buy into the tribal values of old. We no longer burn witches, purchase slaves, sell our daughters, or stone those that work on Sunday.
    So, secular morals are on a much higher ground than are religious pretense to morality.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    June 18, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    What this article calls "bias" in favor of marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples has to do with the fact that those who oppose marriage equality have never been able to present any logical arguments.

    They insist that marriage equality goes against "God's Word," even though the United States is not theocracy, and churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

    They insist they're trying to "protect" marriage for the sake of children, even though couples do not have to marry to have children, the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license, and Gay individuals and couples will continue to raise countless adopted children to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood, regardless of their marital status.

    And silliest of all, they raise the prospect that if EVERYONE was Gay, the human race would go extinct ... as if the marriage equality movement was an effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone!

    If the news media are guilty of anything, it's just approaching this issue from a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 18, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    I seem to recall some heavily biased polls against same-sex marriage which were nothing like mainstream media on any of the other polls.

    Now, why - do I ask - would Des News publish highly incredible poll and criticize another?

    Can we say bias, anyone?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 18, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @lost in DC;

    And yet you constantly use "god" as your own argument. LOL. The irony, it burns.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Candide, Tolstoy,
    TOO funny!!!

    no, I don't think the religious will accept infanticide or the abondonment of traditional marriage as moral as do the securalists.

    I think it sad the gay marriage folk depend on a lie to further their cause. I fail to see how using a lie is using reason or fact to support their position.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    The media, journalists, press and professors at many universities have been setting the state since the 1960s to get this type of coverage. The Democrats have benefitted from this type of coverage with the immigration issue, also. Hillary did this type of move when her President was our President, not her. She knew it would come up when she was running for office and would get the people to vote for her based on a biased press. Biased and based are only one letter apart but the press uses the "I" version to not have it based on a strong foundation.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    June 18, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Way to go Des News. Never let the facts get in the way of a good (biased) story. Classic!

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Bias in the media? Wow, who would have thunk. Besides, Homosexual marriage is the current flavor of the month.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Way to go, DesNews, you took a Pew Research study and portrayed as something completely different than what it really is. (That wouldn't be "bias" now, would it?)

    The Pew headline reads, "NEWS COVERAGE CONVEYS STRONG MOMENTUM FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE." That's not "bias," that's a statement of fact. Get the difference?

    From the actual Pew article: "Within the media debate on the subject, this report found that those arguing for same-sex marriage had a more consistent message than those arguing against."

    That would be because equality is an easy and honest message to share. Opposing equality based on irrational fear is always going to be a tough sell.

    The Pew article concludes with this, "The findings show how same-sex marriage supporters have had a clear message and succeeded in getting that message across all sectors of mainstream media."

    Again, that's not bias, that's reporting facts.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 18, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Speaking of bias.. Please, read the actual link. It doesn't speak of bias at all. This article misrepresents the study and it's this article, not the study that claims bias. The study found more statements supporting marriage equality, but as a reflection of shifting positions on the subject.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:06 a.m.

    To claim there are not news organizations that try to form societal opinions would be naive. That being said, what is at play is largely supply and demand.

    If there was a demand for more coverage in favor of "traditional marriage" the law of supply states it would be there.

    The liberal bias in the media can largely be attributed to the fact there is more demand for a liberal media rather than a conservative one.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 18, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    You poor, poor conservatives. The big, bad media is out to get you and make you think equality is actually a good thing.

    /sarcasm

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 18, 2013 4:47 a.m.

    To All who say this type of story is obvious.

    This type of story that is "obvious" is DEFINITELY worth printing. There are lots and lots of people out there who don't think there is a media bias. Every year 17 year olds turn 18 and a huge percentage of them don't know there is media bias. Some of them don't even know what you mean by the idea "media bias." There are plenty of 20 somethings that haven't seen enough hard core proof but are starting to suspect. This is hard core proof. Can't deny 5-1 very easily. Plus journalists themselves often think they are doing a better job at not being biased. They remember the "1" statement they said and lose count of the "5". Great story.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    June 17, 2013 11:31 p.m.

    Not only media bias exists and continues, but the gradual brainwashing of our children in the public schools in many parts of the nation, particularly on the east and west coasts. On most college campuses today, the new rebel is a conservative.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    "Pew study: News media inserted bias into gay marriage debate"

    -----------------

    Astonishing!

    Surely, this ranks up there with headlines like, "Flash: Recent evidence reveals that water is wet!"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 17, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    If you want to make this into a big news story, then fine. Gay people are winning the PR war. Suck it up; at least they're in touch with who they are, and not arguing from the viewpoint of a fantasy world.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 17, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    The only thing surprising about this story is that it was actually written... and printed!

    Media bias most certainly exists, and is itself proof of the bias that infects nearly every college campus, and most of secondary education as well. All that enthusiasm for "diversity" in its varied facets vanishes instantly upon the utterance of any conservative thought, or challenge to the liberal dogma.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 17, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    Perhaps the "counter arguments" would get more coverage if they were actually based on something otber then false prapaganda. It's hard to give equal report ing without ignoring tbe facts when the opposition to gay marriage abandened fact and reason so long ago.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    It's about time the religious start catching up to the morality of secularists.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    Everyone knows about media bias. Bias exists on both sides, with a heavy tend to liberalism. Conservative views simply aren't popular. Hollywood knows what makes money, and it isn't what you hear at the pulpit.

    The thing that is really sad about all this "influence" is that those who follow the world seem to think they have some kind of independence of reason.

    Being brainwashed to accept or live in sin isn't independence, it's the exact opposite. What I hear at the pulpit is that we all make mistakes, we all can change and improve. All of us listening to that message have experience. We all know what it's like to do wrong, and many have changed and done right. Inherently, we know more fully right from wrong. So those preaching that they somehow have a superior understanding of tolerance, morality, law, and reason... they really are accepting the most limited view one can have, which is moral relativism.

    The family inherently is not limited, but expanding, growth, and the human destiny. Homosexuality inherently limits everything we are. Happiness is only found through repentance, not through sin. Popularity will never change that.

  • md Cache, UT
    June 17, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    The media wants liberals in power, no guns in citizen's hands, gays getting special privileges and praise for their choice, legalized marijuana, etc....

    Sad state of affairs. This country is ripe for destruction.

  • Aloha Saint George Saint George, Utah
    June 17, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    No Way! You telling me the media are in an effort to change society in basic foundation of society by portraying as normal and without consequence? The funny thing is that a large majority are believing this line. Turn off the news- you'll gain more value from ESPN.

  • Ironhide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    I am utterly flummoxed by the revealing outcome of this poll.(sense the sarcasm)