http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-gaymarriage,0,4594392.story
The paper edition of the trib hasn't had much in the way of minorities, so I decided to check out the website. Creatively enough, I searched for 'minorities' and up came a whole lot about Tiger Woods (which I didn't think really would've been that relevant) and a lot about this gay marriage vote that's been going on. So yes, this isn't about a racial minority but, instead, a minority in sexual orientation. Spicing things up a bit.
The lead was a combination of a scene-setter and a regular news lead. It contained most of the important information about the logistics of the vote, but threw in the fact that homosexual legislators were trying to persuade the voters by telling their own love stories. I think that this was a nice touch because, personally, I see the issue of gay marriage as more than just a vote left to a panel of people. It's about strangers deciding on whether they should recognize a couple's love if they are of the same gender. (Since this is my blog, I feel like it's ok to through in a little opinion here.) This isn't just about numbers, it's about people, and these people are brimming with emotion. I think it's a nice juxtaposition.
I appreciate the homosexual legislators in this article. In some of the other articles I've read about minorities, they lack sources of the race in question. Or, they have people of the race but not really connected to the event in question. Here are these homosexual legislators that are in the middle of it all - what a wonderful addition. They even have a person quoted saying that he would vote for allowing gay marriage if it was up to him, but his religion won't allow it. Again - a quote from a person in the middle of it all. These are the conflicts that come in to play with the vote. And yet, he blatantly marks his blending of church and state. Should a person who is so ruled by their religion be allowed to make decisions? He admitted that his personal choice varied from that of his church, yet he was bound. Ethical? eh.
While I am a supporter of gay marriage, I still feel as though the opposing side was under-represented. There is the quote from the man who voted against it, but wished he didn't have to, and then there are two more shorter quotes from other objectors. These two quotes seem to lack the punch that the quotes of the supporters carry. The one quote that puts up a good front is one from Douglas, who personally opposes but says he won't push his opinions on others. I do get a pro-gay marriage feel overall, though.
The article includes good information, including a little about the law in other states as well as where the bill is likely headed. Even with the good sources, I felt like the article was a little dry. The transitions were somewhat choppy and I didn't feel a strong overall connectedness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I didn't really detect the same bias in the article. Though it's true that the opposition is not featured as heavily, those in favor of gay marriage represented the majority. In some instances, it's more appropriate to cover arguments proportionately rather than "balance" them.
ReplyDelete