Truthiness in Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Truthiness in Same Sex Marriage Same sex marriage has been at the forefront of the news for thelast few years. There seems to be two sides of the debate. One side states that some sex marriage is a right for everyone who wants to get married, and it is protected under the constitution. In addition, the argument supports that African Americans went through similar situations during the civil rights movement. The other side of the controversy states that marriage is sacred and it should only be between one male and one female. Generally, this is a religious point of view. As these two sides of the issue have emerged, the controversy has been covered in the media. "Fox News" reported all the facts as best they could it seemed. They gave the most bipartisan news. It seemed that they wanted to give all the information and let their viewers decide for themselves what to believe. From all of this information researched for this, "Fox News" is very accurate in presenting both sides. They covered everything from the controversy to the different states and how they were making decisions about whether to allow or disallow it. They always used experts in their articles and they provided any information that was needed. As an example, one of the articles reported on a poll that was taken about same sex marriage. They printed the results of the poll at the end of the article. Because they used experts, it seemed that people could rely on their information. In fact, Politifact said that they were truthful in their reporting. "The Daily Show" had a lot of information but it was presented in a cynical and sarcastic way. Jon Stewart was interested in poking fun at the issue and making people think differently than "Fox News" did. As an example, the two videos that I listened two were very cynical. The first one talked to a gay man who wanted a divorce from his partner. Stewart talked to a minister who was opposed to gay marriage. He suggested that all people should have a right to divorce like heterosexuals. He points out that married people are not doing well because they themselves want to divorce. He gave an example of "the sanctity of marriage" that included a man, a woman and another woman. Although this was "fake news" it really had a place in our society in that people will listen to it and form their own opinions. These opinions will be given through their selective perception because everyone will perceive differently based on many factors. Stewart really appeals to those listeners who are open to gay marriage more than he appeals to those who do not. He frames his information in such a way that people are manipulated to think in certain ways. He uses the concept of framing to make sure that people concentrate on how ridiculous it is to fight the issue of gay marriage by applying only Christian ethics to it. He is shaping how people will think about this topic. Much of what he says is opinion so his reporting is more truthiness than it is truthful. Stephen Colberts reporting is equally as cynical as Jon Stewarts but he leads with what looks like as a conservative viewpoint. I was surprised that "self-described conservatives" believe that Stephen Colbert shares their values and beliefs; this is far from the truth. What Colbert does is create a lead that seems to be conservative and then he bends it to a parody with cynicism. As an example, in "The Colbert Coalition Anti-Gay Marriage Ad," Colbert begins by talking about the video that the National Organization for Marriage created against same sex marriage. In the NOM video, they talk about a "Storm" that is brewing to take away the rights of heterosexuals. They state that Scandinavia made same sex marriage legal and created an increase in suicides. Colbert points out that 1) Scandinavia is not a country and 2) they made up the information in the ad. With phrases like, "people are born thinking that gays dont have the right to get married or even join in union" many conservatives may be mislead to believe that he is purporting their views. However, with statements like, "many parents "are not ready to admit their child is intolerant" and we "need to protect this persecuting minority", he is not saying that he is conservative nor showing that he has their views. Stewart frames his information in what he thinks and he sets an agenda that he wants people to think about. He uses a bit of co-orientation in that he establishes a rapport with the viewers and makes the conservatives think they have shared values. Again, he is reporting more truthiness than truth. There are also elements of cultivation because he understands that the largest voice in this controversy, the one that seems to get more press, is the conservative side; he wants to add more information on the side of support for gay marriage. In looking at the fact checking information, some of it was good and some of it was biased. As an example, Jeremy Holden ("Media Watch") gave his opinion about a report that was done by Bill O[Reilly and Ann Coulter. He seemed to be upset about the fact that these two talked about civil rights versus civil disobedience. His reporting attempts to sway the readers opinion through framing his words very carefully. He presents more truthiness that fact because he presents only opinion. Julie Hollar (FAIR) reported on what other journalists were saying about same-sex marriage. Hollar points out that it is "important for journalists to seek out and tell stories" (1) of people who cannot tell their own story. Hollar suggests that this should be done regardless of their opinion and they should give both sides of the argument. Her reporting fits well with the Hutchins Commission information because they suggest an unbiased way of reporting that provides "a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the days events". Ruth Marcus (Fact Checker) wants the readers to make their own judgments like "Fox News" did. She puts all of the facts as she knows them in the article and then lets the reader decide. She also uses quotes from experts to help make the decision. She posed both sides of the argument by giving voice to the National Organization for Marriage, the San Francisco Chronicle and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. These are all experts on this issue. Some of the fact finding websites gave good information and backed up what they said through the experts. They brought conclusions to the articles. However, Hollars article pointed out that newspapers basically have reported some bias in some situations and hard facts in others. This is something that this reader also found. As an example, Hollars article was "too sympathetic" to the "gay marriage side" (1). They gave their opinion rather than hard fact. OF all the media researched, only Fast Check seemed to have reported facts and was the most truthful. "Fox News" came in second for truth. The Comedy Channel did not dwell on facts as they saw them in the media. They made their own facts instead, based on popular opinion for those who were for same sex marriage. Fast Check was also the most balanced reporting of the news because they gave specific facts. As an example, they gave an explanation of what civil union was and how it differed from marriage. The overall implications seem to be that the media researched was covering this issue in a variety of ways. Each one wanted the reader or viewer to think in a particular way and some wrote through some bias. Much of the information did not fit all of the aspects of the Hutchins Commission. As an example, "a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism" ("Press in America") was not really available in The Daily Show or the Colbert Report because they were both producing only one side. None of them really presented "a method of presenting and clarifying the goals and values of the society" ("Press in America"). Although this may have been a better way to talk about the subject of same sex marriage. Truth in journalism often depends on the audience and what the media thinks people want to read. In most of the information that was given in all of the information read, there was a specific slant, which is common in journalism. Many reporters rely a great deal on selective perception because they understand that most people have an opinion about something and tend to go with the popular opinion of the perception. With The Daily Show and the Colbert Report this was very evident. They took what was popular, the "threat" against same sex marriage, and they made a parody about it to show people that not only was there another way to look at this issue, but part of what they were thinking was ridiculous. Most of the press information used a particular part of framing in order to make the readers or listeners form one opinion of the issue. Works Cited Blanton, David. "Majority opposes same-sex marriage." 18 June 2004. Fox News. 7 Feb. 2010. "Charge Press Didnt Play it Straight". 2004 Oct. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). 7 Feb. 2010. < http://www.fair.org/extra/0409/gay-marriage- consensus.html,http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1968. rt-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad> Colbert, Stephen. "The Colbert Coalitions Anti-Gay Marriage Ad." 16 Apr. 2009. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central. 07 February 2010. Read More