Why the media is being called biased in the marriage equality ‘debate’
Marriage equality might sound like the news story from heaven, but TV and radio networks, publishers and journalists face an uphill struggle when interviewing and writing about the issue because you can’t give a fair hearing when there is really nothing to hear, argues Francis Wilkins.
The ABC’s internal memo last week warned its staff to remain “impartial” around issues concerning marriage equality and to ensure “all perspectives are given a fair hearing and treated with respect”. But it suggests the national broadcaster also has an inkling of the predicament journalists find themselves in when covering the subject.
One can only speculate about whether the memo was inspired by Emma Alberici’s grilling of Senator Mathias Cormann on Lateline. Even if it wasn’t, the interview – for which Alberici has rightly been widely praised – is probably the sort of probing that the ABC’s editorial policy manager had in mind when he sent the memo.
Given ample opportunity, Cormann failed to provide any reassurance that a compulsory plebiscite, a non-binding postal ballot or any other method would reflect something vaguely resembling the views of Australians.
Just because (allegedly) 40% of the Australian population are homophobic and oppose marriage equality, why then does the ABC have to pander to this hate? Should ABC journalists be directed to also give space to racists and misogynists?
Well said. It’s also impossible to have a “respectful debate” when the very position of one side of that debate is so highly disrespectful.
This article is a perfect representation of the contemptuous and unreasonable attitudes which will see many who support or are neutral toward SSM try and make a broader point about diversity of views and freedom of expression by voting against it.
Excellent thought out article Francis, thank you for this.
The analogy is the climate change debate, whereby almost 100% of impartial climate researchers agree that human induced climate change is an undeniable fact (let alone a theory). Typical opponents tend to have links to the big polluters of the world. Yet the ABC was told to be impartial about this!
There is a wide gulf between evidence-based findings and undeniable facts.
‘Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’
The term ‘extremely likely’ is italicised in the original text;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm.....AL_SPM.pdf
By overstating the case, you only increase the polarity on the discussion and give deniers another opportunity to find fault in the argument.
Try to see consequences beyond blind ideology.
Why is marriage so important when unmarried couples, irrespective of their orientation, seem to have all the legal rights they require to live and prosper in our society. Many people don’t marry and as far as I am concerned are not considered or treated any different to those who are. So if the marriage act says marriage is between a man and a woman, let’s just accept it. There are plenty of laws which curtail what we can and can’t do in a democratic society, the marriage act is just one of them.
You may have some argument against marriage in general but it is not a strong one against not allowing gay people in particular equal rights.
Unmarried people, particularly of the same sex, DO NOT have the same rights. A very quick Google came up with:
– They do not have the same automatic inheritance rights
– Adoption by same sex couples not allowed in a couple of states
– Recognition of civil partnership not recognised in some states
– married couples from overseas do not have their relationship recognised in some states. There was a tragic case last year(?) where a traveler died on honeymoon and his husband was not allowed on death certificate or to make decisions.
– A separate case where gay partner denied access to partner’s body
– People have been denied access to their partner’s funerals by disapproving family
There was an Australian service set up recently that allowed same-sex couples to mimic marriage as legally close as possible – it was about $9000 from memory and still not exactly the same! That does not speak to equality to me.
You must know it didn’t say “man and woman” until the Howard era (so relatively recently). One could easily have said just a few years ago “it *doesn’t* say between a man and a women so let’s just accept that”. One man changed it that time, but we need a whole country to weigh in now?!
And you miss the main point which isn’t that some people don’t marry and it’s all good. It’s that heterosexual couples do have that right and that choice and gay couples don’t. One law for all.
Using blatant and blinkered bias to try to explain why bias is actually okay.
What an interesting article, concocted from deep within a truly juvenile echo chamber.
Typical of the ‘yes’ side’s approach to this debate.
“They’re wrong, we’re right, so we can trash whatever argument they put up.”
This would go well on an ABC website.
well said sir
Well said Robbo.
Here are just a few of the many questions there are & which I’d like to see answered as part of the ‘other’ side of the debate:
In the history of the world, has there ever before been a fight for ‘equality’ which required the redefinition of that to which access was sought?
What is marriage & what purpose does it serve in society?
What is the logic for calling all non heterosexual unions marriage?
What can we learn from the experience of those countries where same sex marriage has been legalised?
To date we’ve just been badgered with: ‘love is love’ (really?), ‘give me what I want’ (why?), ‘it’s about equality’ (how?) etc.. Legislation ‘by fatigue’ is what the professional lobbyists are hoping for.
Well, Aussies are renown for calling ‘a spade a spade’ & I hope that remains the case with marriage.
A spade is a spade.
…and you are [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy].
The purpose of marriage is for two people who love each other to express their devotion to each other.
The logic for calling it marriage is that every person in the country deserves the same rights.
And we can learn that nothing has changed in those countries. Life goes on as before.
@In response, the purpose of marriage is far more than simply something two people who love each other do. It has been for thousands of years an important foundation of society where a woman and a man can create a foundation for a natural family. It allows children the balance of both a mother and a father (with their complimentary, unique differences).
Is it correct for any government to legislate that any child does not have a right to have both a father and a mother?
It is simply untrue that nothing has changed in those countries where the definition of marriage has changed.
I agree that all people should have equal legal rights and any legislation which has not been changed to ensure this should be, but the definition of marriage is far more than simply about “love”.
Oh perfect!
I find it hilarious that the politicians trying hardest to prevent SSM (thereby restricting the LGBTI community’s freedom) are the very same politicians who tried hardest to change the discrimination law (because apparently it was a restriction on the community’s freedom).
Many are climate change deniers, who conveniently(?) appear to have alliances with fossil fuel energy companies and a fair few are highly religious. Catholics, in particular, seem to be anti marriage equality. The same Catholic’s were very tight lipped when celebrant priests, time and time again, were getting busted for all sorts of crimes against, mainly juvenile boys. It is a positive to see that the Catholic population of Australia in the last ABS census results is shrinking. We mustn’t just pick on just the Catholic’s though. Most Muslims and Jews (please correct me if I am wrong here) are anti marriage equality. Ideology, really does strip away rational doesn’t it. Most Anglican’s however seem to be pro the yes vote, which is nice and I am sure will enable them to attract more progressives (well ‘religious progressives’, not true progressives, re**science**), into their church.
Just let people be happy is what I say. In terms of what will happen if marriage equality is achieved in Australia: we will have a far happier populace – simples. (Oh and there will loads more work in the wedding industry = ‘jobs and growth’.)
Lastly, a lot of the hardly, religious right wing Catholic’s seem to be anti burka. It’s funny isnt it, because they are actually very, very similar in their conservative views for most things. Perhaps we need to start looking at the umbrella ‘Abrahamic’ and really working out what is best in a secular, free society. Religious ideology in 2017???
hardy*
It’s the consequences that are the real issue, not the simplified, dumbed down notion of “equality”, which is designed to wrongly justify hate to anyone who has a different view, to stifle debate and difference.
Well said Robbo, sir – Using blatant and blinkered bias to try to explain why bias is actually okay.
What an interesting article, concocted from deep within a truly juvenile echo chamber.
Typical of the ‘yes’ side’s approach to this debate.
“They’re wrong, we’re right, so we can trash whatever argument they put up.”
This would go well on an ABC website.
If throughout your life you have been told X and have not worked it out for yourself, there is a high probability that you will believe that X is right. If there is a herd of people who think that X is right, you might well side with them. Being told what to think versus thinking for yourself with reason. There are three camps. NO, Yes and Yes when reason is applied. Please do correct me, with facts, if I am wrong.
The article poses a vexing question – “Why the media is being called biased in the marriage equality ‘debate’” even though it was presented as a statement.
When you boil it all down the answer is not that difficult.
The conservative right love two terms – “bias” (aka ‘Fake News’) and “politically correct”.
If they read, see or hear anything in the media they disagree with, then the answer is that “the media is biased”. Hence the ABC is biased (and will be punished under new media laws).
If an individual says something they disagree with then the person is instantly labelled as “politically correct”. Hence anyone who stands up for civil liberties or human rights will be mindlessly dismissed.
So if anyone you know or hear of bang on about “bias” and “politically correctness” you can safely turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.
This is an astute observation. I am still waiting to hear coherent and respectful arguments from the right that don’t fall back on these terms.
The irony here is that the one thing the gay marriage advocates seek, is validity for their position.
Validity doesn’t come through closed-door decisions by political elites who promised absolutely not to make such a decision.
Validity doesn’t come from echo-chamber, lock-step compliance by the mainstream media, too cowardly to candidly debate a topic of importance to the masses.
Validity can only come through the endorsement of the majority of the people. Then and only then, can the gay communities feel validated in their marriage. Without that endorsement, it will always be seen as the indulgence of an elitist minority, and invalid.
Ok let the ABC have a debate. Well then see the pros and cons in public, not just in the mind of this writer.
I’m all in favour of same sex marriage and will be voting yes, but this opinion piece is utter nonsense and typical of someone who can’t conceive of an opinion different to their own. Journalists have a responsibility to give a balanced treatment to both sides of this debate no matter their own views. What sort of blinkered ideologue thinks its a good strategy to deny the opposing view isn’t even worthy of debating? “There’s quite simply nothing to discuss” is the stupidest line ever uttered by anyone. That’s never going to win hearts and minds is it? This contempt for people with ‘unworthy’ views saw Trump and Brexit prevail. Let’s hope people like you don’t help get the No case over the line.
Perfectly put, Dr Phil.
This is probably the best thing written about this debacle I have read to date. Well done.
Why don’t we just call it Garriage and get on it ?
What have the SSM crowd got against democracy? If they hate it so much, save yourselves the trouble of sticking around for the plebiscite, and move to Cuba, or North Korea. They’ll welcome your intolerance with open arms.
But before you go remember, democracy gave your everything you have. Show a bit of gratitude and respect for once. And BTW, you’re in for a surprise come November.
Perhaps the postal vote is an elaborate plan concocted by Aus Post to get the younger demos to start using their services and become the behemoth they once were
Brilliant! Although they will not have to experience licking a stamp as the return envelopes will be pre stamped…
The ABC’s email cautioning staff to be balanced, since repeated by SBS, is no more than a cover to be cited when the organisation is charged with being an activist for gay marriage. The sole purpose of the email is to be quoted, along with the ABC Act, board supervision, and all the rest of the requirements for objectivity which the ABC flagrantly ignores. Emma Alberici went through the list just last week during her ferocious on-air attack on (I mean, interview with) Senator Malcolm Roberts.
We already have ‘marriage equality’ – lots of gay people have married in Australia. They are as entitled as anyone else to get married, provided (obviously) they meet the definition of ‘marriage’, which is based on the original concept of the male-female dynamic. The problem they currently have is akin to a baseball player trying to join a cricket club but insisting they want to play baseball and not cricket. Both are perfectly fine sports – but only one of them comes under the definition of ‘cricket’.
If certain groups are so intent on changing this aspect of our culture by changing the definition of marriage then why not get the people to vote for it? At least this will make it more acceptable (to some at least). Otherwise, I suggest we use my preferred option of civil unions (which would bestow exactly the same civil rights as for married couples anyway).
As for the ABC’s bias on the issue…it is extreme to say the least. The bizarre thing is that it is such a recent development. Like many in the ALP (who happily supported the traditional view of marriage for many years) many ABC presenters now seem unable to control their rage on the issue. ‘Our ABC’ indeed.
I’m sure the postal vote will be a ‘yes’ and I guess I’ll be happy for the people who (at least in the last few years) have wanted it so much. But I do wonder what will happen when someone inevitably uses exactly the same arguments to justify polygamous marriages in Australia. We won’t simply be able to argue that it is our tradition/culture any more. Once you get rid of the male/female dynamic from the definition of marriage you really do open up a huge can of worms…in addition to taking away another part of our culture/history.
“According to the memo, ‘same-sex marriage’ rather than ‘marriage equality’ is to be used – perhaps the former is seen as more objective for journalistic purposes.
But consider this: straight couples who want to marry can do so; gay and lesbian couples who want to, can’t. ‘Inequality’ seems to sum up the situation pretty objectively in my books.”
I just want to address something that is kind of skirted around here.
I am a bisexual woman. If I marry another woman, that doesn’t mean I’m gay.
Calling it same-sex marriage is more inclusive of people who aren’t gay but want to marry someone of the same sex. It leaves room for dialogue around the idea that I can marry a man but I can’t marry a woman: even though I am the same person the law changes for me depending on who I am in a relationship with.
I for one have really appreciated the change in word use.
Currently there is a “Civil Union” very similar to marriage but lacks some legislative aspect to make it equal in weight.
There are question marks on the sustainability aspects of same gender marriage, while never actually brought up as a topic of discussion. The Australian birth rates is one of the lowest in the world (1.7 per woman or tfr). This negative replacement rate is made worse by supplementing it by immigration. In the immediate to medium term it is good, the long term it is bad for sustainability. The welfare system required to support people that have retired, and the ever increasing cost of child rearing.
Marriage is a religious term, that was adopted by the legislative system, but now that the legislature has got a new term “Civil Union” that should be the standard used in legal spheres, and separate it from marriage which is used in religious spheres. The shift to separate Church and State, a foundation of democracy.
I have no problems with it per se, as it will increase employment opportunities for divorce lawyers, and relationship councillors. More activity within the economy.
The government needs to look at the long term picture and the causal effects, 2.3 tfr is needed as a minimum before such social experiments should be allowed to be tested.