I don't usually think of George Will as someone who misses the point. Even when he is wrong about something, he usually understands and can articulate what is at the heart of the debate. That's one of his particular virtues.
So I was more than just disappointed in his column this morning about the election in Washington State. Reading his column makes it seem as if Washington's electorate is voting on a referendum to disclose the names of petition signers. Will offers one offhand sentence to mischaracterize the election ("The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage." Yes, "some" say that - the proponents), but virtually every other word in his column is about a completely tangential lawsuit that is pending in the courts.
Will, of course, has no obligation to write about the subject of the actual election two days before election day -- though people could certainly be forgiven for thinking that might be what the column is about. What is most confounding is that the tone of the column is so characteristic of the core tactics of the anti-gay side. Its premise is right out of the 99 and 44 one hundredths percent of Pure Fox News that is not news: The liberals are out to get decent conservatives in this country: "It is time to speak up about thuggish liberalism," he writes in the final paragraph.
Well, maybe it is. Writers on this site can speak from experience about such thuggery. But Washington is having an election, not about thuggery, but about whether to approve a legislative proposal to correct a history of injustice to same-sex couples, an imperfect one that attempts to give them everything but marriage. The opponents cannot tolerate such equality, and lacking real arguments, want to talk about anything but marriage: implicating gays in the recruitment (if not actual molestation) of children; insinuating that religion would somehow be undermined by domestic partnership; and now distracting the voters from the actual subject by focusing them on the privacy rights of petition signers.
Two days before the election, Will has added his considerable voice to theirs in preventing voters from focusing on the issue before them in the referendum. The press keeps presenting these elections as being about gay marriage. But once again, we're seeing how little interest the right has in having that discussion.
16 Comments for “Anything But Marriage”
posted by Jorge on
99.44% of Fox News is not news? Says who? I resent that.
posted by esurience on
Jorge,
I guess you didn’t see Jon Stewart’s take-down of Fox News, here you go:
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002312/
As for this disclosure issue and referendum 71, Stephen Colbert has a nice take on it here:
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/colbert-washington-71
His advice is to vote YES on Referendum 71, if you’re worried about the disclosure issue, because if the law is retained, no one will care who signed the petition. Brilliant 🙂
posted by David Link on
Jorge, at the risk of taking this thread as far off topic as previous ones, I want to be candid, since you are one of IGF’s more loyal and thoughtful commenters. Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic with my Ivory Soap reference, but Fox News is, itself, hyperbolic beyond reason, and as esurience notes, Jon Stewart’s piece is right on. I would like nothing better than a good conservative news show (news networks, by their very nature are miserable exercises in emotivity, in my opinion — something Colbert nailed when he announced that on his program, he would feel the news for us). Fox’s version of conservatism is, I’m afraid, too virulent for my tastes. More salient here, the distance between what they profess and what they offer is too great. Stewart took their statements about how separate their news and opinion shows are, and just demolished them as the lies they are, using clips from the very shows they claimed were not opinion. Of course their news shows are slanted dramatically to the right. Any suggestion to the contrary is fabulism.
The mainstream news is less bad only by a small degree, but there are plenty of people calling them out. They do the same thing Will does in their manipulative use of that ever-helpful “some.” “Some” people claim that health insurers murder thousands of people every year because of greed. Yes, “some” people do; and they’re almost all democrats or democratically affiliated groups, including “some” who pretend they are neutral academic or public policy entities. Why not report that highly relevant fact about your own reporting?
The folks at IGF, I think, have as our common interest looking through such shams, and doing our best to expose rather than obscure the truth, even when it hurts. Maybe Fox News is “news” in a broad sense that would include the pap that the mainstream media showers on us as well. But Fox’s prevarications are especially risible, and especially political, and worth exposing.
posted by Mark on
I’m disappointed the author didn’t address Will’s point at all. It won’t do to just say “waa, waa, no fair.”
posted by esurience on
Mark:
Why would he address Will’s point? David Link’s point is that Will’s article gives the reader the impression that the issue it is discussing has something to do with the Tuesday election — it does not. The merits of disclosing, or not disclosing, the names of people who sign a petition has *nothing* to do with the merits of marriage equality (or marriage-lite aka domestic partnerships).
When Will writes, only 2 days prior to the election in Washington that, “It is time to speak up about thuggish liberalism” — what exactly do you think he is urging? He’s urging people to vote ‘no’ on referendum 71 — even though his article has nothing to do with referendum 71 per se. He’s urging people to vote ‘no’ because some people are (*gasp*) trying to get the proponents of referendum 71 to actually comply with existing state law.
I think George Will did make some good points against requiring the disclosure of petitioners names. I’m not totally sure where I stand on the issue, but I’m leaning towards the position of privacy rather than required disclosure. What I do know is this: my position on the issue of disclosure has nothing to do with my position, as a gay person, on marriage equality. Disclosure vs privacy is a much broader issue than that.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t take arguments that cite John Stewart first seriously. The fact that a for lot of young people John Stewart is their primary or only source of news is sad. John Stewart is a comedian and he frequently bends the truth in order to make people look silly and get laughs. And after watching three minutes of that (if he nailed it somewhere else do let me know) I still think he’s a comedian who bends the truth in order to get laughs. From what I saw, on the surface the conflict between the White House and MSNBC is similar to the conflict between the White House and Fox News. Digging deeper than the surface there are many differences which Stewart did not care to point out, and which I will not either, since we all have working memories. This is why the John Stewart Show is not a good source of news or analysis. It’s very good theater to people who are already informed, but that’s about it.
I watch Fox News every day–mainly the prime time opinion shows but sometimes the morning show and I’ve watched their other news shows in the past. Fox News gives me things to think about that I would not have had otherwise by covering news and events that other news outlets do not. This is often attributed to there being a liberal bias in the media, and I’ve been convinced on this point. This year Fox News has even more greatly enhanced a reputation for aggressive journalism that puts fear into the people in power. I am well aware that the driving force here has been its opinion commentators. Even so, if the problem truly was hyperbole, the Obama administration wouldn’t be so afraid of it. I think what we have this year with Glenn Beck is hyperbole covering a truth that is still unacceptable. Most importantly, Fox News regularly covers and debates ideological topics and events, both liberal and conservative, that other news outlets do not, putting me in the front seat of national debates. Fox News’s primary method of objectivity is in constantly inviting voices from multiple points of view or ideologies and letting them do the arguing while also defending their positions. I have no problem with this.
There have been a couple of times in the past when Culture Watch posters here (I think mainly Stephen Miller) have commented on *specific* contemporary examples of FNC getting things very badly biased. I always disagreed with them.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, and the point is that while I don’t mind fair critique, I find it insulting to my considerable intelligence, knowledge, and education to see people drive-by dismiss Fox News in this way, and you can see I don’t have to tolerate it.
posted by jim on
it’s insulting to other readers’ “considerable intelligence, knowledge, and education” that you can’t even spell jon [not john] stewart’s name correctly. and it’s more than insulting that you can so easily dismiss stewart as “just” a comedian while advocating the view that such fox news jokesters as glenn beck, bill o’reilly, et al. [their prime-timers, whom you watch daily] as legitimate journalists”? have some more kool-aid.
posted by Debrah on
I’m sure JON STEWART will be able to suffer the indignity of having had an “h” added to his name on a comment thread.
Stewart is a very smart, savvy guy; however, he is, first and foremost, a comedian. Even he will cop to this reality.
I began my cable news venture watching MSNBC back in the ’90s when people like Dan Abrams and Lester Holt relayed the news. Coverage was more balanced then. And, of course, there was always the responsible voice of Tim Russert showing up for news analyses.
MSNBC has not only jumped the shark. They’ve long ago packed the magnet.
They’re an embarrassment. Moreover, their coverage of the 2008 election was no more than an extension of Obama headquarters at ground zero. Even for an Obama supporter, it was a daily dip into the unseemly.
How can anyone forget slits-for-lips Chris Matthews’ “thrill going up his leg”?
I can take Rachel Maddow because she’s able to discuss her very tendentious views in such a manner that does not alienate; however, the thin-lipped monster Keith Olbermann is really quite pathetic.
I rarely take the time to watch Fox News, but occasionally.
Under Glenn Beck’s goofy facade there seems to be some intelligence. I don’t watch him.
Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are so high because the veracity and fact-finding of his reports always eclipse the insipid partisan emotion of those like MSNBC’s Olbermann.
Fox News seems to carry the day among the country’s viewers.
posted by esurience on
I figured you’d go the route of calling Jon Stewart just a comedian, Jorge. And of course you admit you didn’t even watch the whole video. I’m not asking you to trust Jon Stewart’s analysis of the situation without evidence. He presents actual video clips from Fox News itself — which you can judge for yourself. Jon Stewart is indeed a comedian, but in between jokes, he does offer some serious analysis. Partly due to Jon Stewart, the show Crossfire on CNN was cancelled, and partly due to Jon Stewart’s interview with Betsy McCaughey (the “death panel” lady), she “resigned” her position of Director at Cantel Medical Corp. So, whether you want to admit it or not, Jon Stewart does actually have a track record of serious political commentary and analysis — and that analysis has had some real consequences for real people.
Do I think his show presents a balanced viewpoint? No, he’s a liberal, and he tends to run stories which show liberals in a positive light and conservatives in a bad light. But that doesn’t make his criticism of conservatives _incorrect_, it just makes it unbalanced because he doesn’t often criticize liberals. He’s not a journalist — and doesn’t present himself as such, but he does often do analysis better than the real journalists — at least when it comes to things like exposing hypocrisy and lies from conservatives and Republicans.
You could say Fox News performs the same service from the other direction. The problem is, they’re presenting themselves as “Fair & Balanced.” And the other problem is that not only are they unbalanced, but they actually distort the news, not merely present an unbalanced view of it. And they don’t have the excuse of doing it for a laugh.
posted by esurience on
To try to nudge the topic back to the.. uhh.. topic, let me extend my reply to Mark:
With regard to the issue of disclosing petitioners names:
1) In the short-run, over the next decade or so, perhaps GLBT people and our allies do have an interest in having the petitioners names exposed, as is consistent with current law, and the whole idea of a petition in the first place — petitions are supposed to be public. If it makes people think twice about signing a petition which denigrates people’s love and relationships, that can only be a good thing for our cause.
2) On the other hand, I don’t think we have a gay dog in the general principle of the disclosure vs privacy battle. It’s only the gay dog’s short-term interest at stake. And if you allow a short-term convenience to override your opinion on a matter of general principle, that’s called hypocrisy.
3) So, being supportive of GLBT equality shouldn’t dictate your stance on the issue of disclosure of petitioners name, unless you’re willing to admit you’re acting hypocritically out of pure self-interest. Given what’s at stake, maybe that’s justified, but that’s a topic for another post 🙂
posted by Debrah on
“You could say Fox News performs the same service from the other direction.”
*******************************
You could say that, but you’d be in error.
Fox News presents a panoramic view, no matter whose ox is being gored.
They spend as much time illuminating the Leftist agenda as they do the Far Right.
Gasp!
All this only seems analogous to Jon Stewart’s type of coverage (to some) because the media in this country are so skewed to the Left that it’s a shock to the senses of those unaccustomed to seeing the other side presented so enthusiastically.
What we see and hear everyday becomes normal and right.
We never question it unless forced by those who are relentless.
posted by Jorge on
esurience, it doesn’t look like you’re going to concede John Stewart-minus-H distorted the truth to get laughs or that he’s less credible than Fox News. I think he’s credible (or at least serious) enough to merit a full attack. Okay I’m done.
posted by esurience on
Jorge: This (off-topic) conversation isn’t about Jon Stewart, it’s about Fox News. The video clip was about Fox News, not about Jon Stewart. What you or I think of Jon Stewart has got nothing to do with this.
posted by Another Steve on
Fox News has vigorous debate, which the left networks (MSNBC) don’t — they’re just baaing to the sheep: OBAMA GOOOOD; Republicans BAAAAAD.
Here’s an excellent letter from today’s WSJ (at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574501752128198702.html):
“Thomas Frank argues that the Obama administration is justified in attacking Fox News because the network is “intensely politicized” (“Obama Is Right About Fox News,” Tilting Yard, Oct. 28). But he is off-base. It’s true that Fox’s opinion shows collectively lean right, but only two tilt far from center (Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck). By contrast, Fox News programs are anchored by middle-of-the-road professionals.
“Fox News also has some of the brightest liberal commentators in the industry; they have to be in order to face the conservative onslaught from other guests. Lanny Davis, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers and Juan Williams (to name a few) can’t get away with much. Instead, they’re forced to make robust, cogent, intelligible arguments. At Fox, vigorous political debate actually takes place; that’s why Fox dominates cable news.”
posted by Term Papers on
Hey!Thanks for sharing what you think about marriages actually it is not just a relation but it is a commitment.