| Related Links |
|
Summersgill testifies on Marriage Officiant Amendment Act 10/14/10 D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in Jackson 07/15/10 Summersgill corrects the record on D.C. marriage equality victory 03/26/10 District Court denies Jackson motion 03/02/10 Chief Justice denies stay 03/02/10 Appeals court denies stay 02/26/10 Judge Holeman denies Jackson stay request 02/20/10 Rosendall slams latest initiative 02/16/10 Summersgill slams latest initiative 02/09/10 Board of Elections and Ethics rejects D.C. marriage referendum 02/04/10 Rosendall testifies against marriage referendum 01/27/10 Judge rules against D.C. initiative 01/14/10 |
Rosendall slams one-sided Post story on MD ministers
From: rrosendall@starpower.net Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:08 PM To: ombudsman@washpost.com Subject: A blind spot in the Post's portrayal of Maryland ministers on marriage Dear Washington Post Ombudsman:
Regarding the March 9 Metro section front-page story by Avis Thomas-Lester and Hamil R. Harris titled, "Pr. George's pastors step up fight against gay nuptials bill":
The story quotes several ministers denouncing Maryland's pending marriage equality bill because "I stand firm on the word of God" and similar statements. What I did not find were any statements by ministers who support the bill.
Were these reporters unaware of the more than 100 clergy members who signed Equality Maryland's declaration of religious support for marriage equality?
http://tinyurl.com/6au65jwDid the reporters not think to check? Did they just assume that the anti-gay ministers spoke for the entire faith community? They could have met some of the gay-affirming ministers at yesterday's interfaith clergy prayer breakfast in Annapolis.
http://tinyurl.com/6ckwskmInstead, the Post article gives the impression that the only ministers involved in the battle over Maryland's marriage equality bill are those opposed to it.
I note that there is another article right beside this one that reports the doubling of marriage licenses in the District over the past 12 months due to D.C.'s marriage equality law. So the point is not that the Post is biased; the point is that the report on clergy involved in the legislative fight is egregiously one-sided. By choosing to focus on the anti-gay lobbying by black Prince George's ministers, the reporters entirely ignored other clergy voices who did not confirm their prior conclusion. That is not responsible journalism.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Rosendall
Washington, D.C.
