I think a fair criticism of LGBT media, in general, is that in the rush to get the story in before the competition, press releases from LGBT organization are often not fully vetted. If an advocacy group claims data from polls, it is our obligation to seek out the validity of those polls. One example, last August, was a press release from an organization that claimed that 55% of Catholics supported civil marriage equality. It was a fact that such a poll was conducted and that the figures were correct. However, a factual statement is not always a true statement.
The truth, not in the press release, was that the poll was conducted by a business that specializes in advancing progressive candidates and causes. In other words, it was a poll meant to advance an agenda. The purpose of journalism is to seek the truth and report it. It is dangerous to promote data that gives the reader a false sense of our capacity when the marriage bill comes before the voters in a likely referendum. We understand the organizations desire to promote their product in the best possible light.
However, when we merely repeat their words we have failed our readership.
Another example, used last year as well is this, is the often repeated data concerning transgender discrimination published by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force concerning transgender discrimination; Injustice at Every Turn. When the numbers for Maryland first came out, and were published at the Equality Maryland website, they clearly stated that the numbers were based on 132 respondents primarily through a web based questionnaire.
The structure of the survey, self-assessment, left a lot of wiggle room. A high percentage of transgender respondents said they had lost their jobs because they were transgender. No doubt many did. As a hiring manager for decades, I learned to take folks reasons for being fired from a previous job with a grain of salt. People who were fired for having their hand in the till, for instance, usually give some other reason.
Polls of this kind make for good copy, and the one mentioned was appropriate when it was first published last year. Since that time, however, the data has been repeated without the dual caveats of the number of people surveyed and the methodology. The numbers have taken on a kind of trans-urban mythology, and if one doubts the numbers, she is branded a heretic.
That kind of heresy is necessary in journalism, to prevent being spun: To seek truth and report it.
LGBT organizations, like all peddlers, have a right to promote their product in the best light possible. Just as a shampoo manufacturer has a right to label a bottle, “30% more FREE!” As a consumer, the journalist needs to ask “30% more than what?”
Another way we are spun, if we let it happen, is our need for access to the key players. Substantial flaws in an organization’s power structure, strategy, or membership are rarely played out when the journalist is concerned about getting the next interview, or be invited to the next private conclave. This kind of submissive journalism leads to the laziness of being “talked at” and results in what the Reuters handbook meant in, “If they would love the story, you may have been spun.”
Besides, investigative journalism is a lot more fun. What we call “background” in journalism or “opposition research” in activism leads to much more interesting copy than what the “leadership” chooses to tell.
Last, is the mediocrity of being nominally fair and balanced. It isn’t always necessary to tell both sides of a story. Sometimes one side has been told so many times, through so many venues, that the reader has never had a chance to listen to the other side, sometimes the reader doesn’t even know there is another side. It is our obligation to seek and publish diverse views.
Similarly, when we cover an event, if we do choose to cover the side that opposes LGBT rights, we are obligated to pick out their best spokespeople and their best arguments. Often we choose to go after the nutcases with the most outlandish claims in order to discredit the other side. This is journalistically dishonest. When we do that, our readers don’t know that smart and respected people in the opposition are giving sound arguments to our legislators. Like the inflated poll numbers, this creates a false sense of security, and then we lose.
