In its Sunday, Dec. 21
story on gay marriage, the New York Times reports, in referring
to President Bush's comments during an interview with ABC's Diane
Sawyer:
But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."
Well, not exactly. The Times chopped two words out of Bush's quote: "If necessary, I will support..." Bush also said during his interview with ABC's Sawyer, "We may need a constitutional amendment."
Nuance is important when parsing a politician's emerging stance on a contentious, politically charged issue, and the New York Times surely knows this. Bush may, in fact, come out in support of a constitutional amendment, but he has not yet done so, and that's important.
If it looks like he'll cruise to an easy re-election, Bush won't
want to risk seeming "intolerant" to swing voters (and, in truth,
he has never shown any desire to play this card). But if the race
tightens and he needs to firm up his right-wing base, who knows.
But misreporting the facts, as the Times did -- along with many gay
activists -- doesn't help those who are actually working to keep
Bush from doing what the Times has reported he already did. [Hat
tip to Andrew Sullivan.com]
More Recent Postings