Shocking news from the capital of the Greatest Nation on Earth™. Believe it or not, the Washington Post is pro-gay! Who knew?!
The ultra-liberal rag's ombudsman ["ombudsperson" or just "ombud", surely. Ed.] said as much in "Is the Post 'pro-gay'?", published on February 22nd. Patrick Pexton was responding to "a steady stream of e-mails and phone calls from readers who assert that The Post has a 'pro-gay agenda' and publishes too many 'puffy' stories about gay marriage".
"Many journalists have a hard time giving much voice to those opposed to gay marriage," Pexton wrote. "They see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing."
Pexton recounted an e-mail exchange between a unnamed reader and an unnamed Post reporter:
The reader wrote that Post stories too often minimize the conservative argument: "The overlooked 'other side' on the gay issue is quite legitimate, and includes the Pope, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, evangelist Billy Graham, scholars such as Robert George of Princeton, and the millions of Americans who believe in traditional marriage and oppose redefining marriage into nothingness. .?.?. Is there no room in The Post for those who support the male-female, procreative model of marriage?"
Replied the reporter: "The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that's the 'view of the world' that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law."
The reader: "Contrary to what you say, the mission of journalism is not justice. Defining justice is a political matter, not journalistic. Journalism should be about accuracy and fairness. Good journalism also means not demeaning conservatives as 'haters.'"
The reporter: "As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn't marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn't be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?
"Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness."
Walt thinks it's a pity this dialogue, especially the illogical -- and patently unfair -- last comment of the reporter, isn't in the form of a video so we could see if the unnamed "reporter" was able to utter that line while keeping a straight face.
In "Equating Christians with Racists", the American Spectator says "That a major American newspaper likens Christians to racists would once have generated outrage. Now it inspires little more than a shrug. The paper's...ombudsman blandly notes it, wishes for a little more 'objectivity', and then moves on."