Who cares?

And what does it have to do with the story?

Published on March 16, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

A judge in California recently ruled that preventing gay marriages was not legal according to the California Constitution. Ok, that was about as unexpected as a sunset. But in writing about he story, the writer betrayed a total bias, and leant nothing to the story:

Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer - a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

What does his religion or political persuasion have to do with his ruling? Not a damn thing. Does it lend itself to the story? Not in one whit. But this 'so called unbiased' reporter had to put the dig in. Why?

Because he is stupid. But that seems to be the norm these days for the pab peddling people who pretend to be objective reporters.

Comments

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2005

You're getting way too sensitive. If anything, this is serving to dispel the widely (and wrongly) held myth that all Catholics and Republicans want to deny gays their rights.

Would mentioning that a white jury had convicted a KKK member been irrelevant to the story back in those days?

Myrrander

on Mar 16, 2005

I think it is relevant because you Republicans keep bitching about "liberal activist judges." Well, here's one of your own making a decision that is unpopular with the rank and file of the GOP. I'm glad I know this now, because it gives me hope that there might be other conservatives out there who aren't gay-bashing homophobes.

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2005

Would mentioning that a white jury had convicted a KKK member been irrelevant to the story back in those days?

No. Again, by putting it into the first paragraph, the story is no longer about Gays Marrying, but as you just inadvertantly noted, about the fact that some Republicans and Catholics are not homophobes. The story changed due to the myopia of the reporter.

Myrrander

on Mar 16, 2005

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2005

The story is about two things. It's main point is about gay marriage, but the fact that the judge who made the ruling is a republican is another significant part of it. Just like if a democratic congressman supported one of Bush's initiatives, it would mention the congressman's affiliation.

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2005

Ok, then name the party affiliation and religion of the members of the Massachuttes supreme court that voted the same way?

I am sure you can google it, but it was not part of the story then. And it is not part of the story now. It may be a story unto itself for those who cant seem to think that a Republican is anything but a conservative Christian, but for the other 80% of us, it is not news. It is bias.

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2005

Going by this definition, wouldn't it be considered bias anytime anything other than an individuals name and title was mentioned?

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2005

Going by this definition, wouldn't it be considered bias anytime anything other than an individuals name and title was mentioned?

It is. But to be 'non-biased', they would then have reported that "3 baptist democrats were joined by a Republican Catholic in over turning Mass law". But they did not. Because it was not news. (and I do not know their religion or party affiliation, I just made that up).

philomedy

on Mar 16, 2005

But to be 'non-biased', they would then have reported that "3 baptist democrats were joined by a Republican Catholic in over turning Mass law".

Wouldn't non-biased have been "4 judges overturned Mass. law"?

Dr Guy

on Mar 16, 2005

Wouldn't non-biased have been "4 judges overturned Mass. law"?

Ultimately, so if the faith and politics of the 4 did not matter, why does it matter in Ca? Simply put, it does not. But when it is something a conservative does, it is plastered all over the story that "Right Wing So and so did Such and such" where as when a left leaning person does something, it is "Sen or Rep so and so did such and such".

If they report it one way for one side, then report it that way for the other. That is the fall back position of non-bias, but the best is as you suggested. Which will not happen any time soon.

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2005

For a contrast on how the article should have been written, check out the AP version:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!