Thursday’s New York Times’ glowing tribute to the certified hate group American Family Association has been the subject of much scorn from the LGBT community and fair-minded journalists nationwide, including, and especially The New Civil Rights Movement, in yesterday’s “New York Times Publishes Glowing Tribute To Anti-Gay Hate Group,” which was widely-quoted.
Today, GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, published, “NY Times Suggests Only ‘Liberals’ Don’t Agree with AFA.”
Here’s a portion of GLAAD’s story:
Not once does Eckholm indicate that perhaps non-liberals might also disagree with the assertion that LGBT people want to put Christians in “re-education camps†or that “the number one class of people who are committing hate crimes today are homosexual activists†(both claims made by Fischer). Nor does he mention that the “liberal critics†who designated AFA as a hate group are actually the widely respected Southern Poverty Law Center.
Yes, Eckholm does make it clear that the AFA holds these extreme views – which is more than some other outlets have done. But there are other problems as well, like in this paragraph.
In 1988, the group renamed itself the American Family Association, and it has had a direct if unheralded hand in recent political battles, sending $500,000 to support the down-to-the-wire campaign for Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, for example, and sending a crack political organizer to Iowa last fall for the successful drive to unseat judges who had supported same-sex marriage. The group also sponsors “pastor policy briefings†around the country that seek to mobilize evangelical voters.
Anti-gay activists claim that those judges “supported†marriage for gay and lesbian couples – a claim which Eckholm repeats here. But this is a gross mischaracterization. The truth is that those judges ruled that under the state constitution, the state could not legally prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying. “Supporting†something and saying “it’s unconstitutional to ban†something are two very different statements, particularly when it comes to judicial rulings. By adopting AFA’s own claims here, Eckholm may as well have called them “activist judges.â€
There are other instances of this too, like saying Home Depot supports “gay pride parades†instead of correctly pointing out that it supports the entire LGBT community. Why the focus on just parades? I have to assume that’s the language AFA uses, because that’s the image it wants to conjure up in its boycott calls.
By adopting AFA’s slyly inaccurate language – and by mischaracterizing this disagreement as one between the AFA and “liberals†rather than between the AFA and an overwhelming majority of Americans – Erik Eckholm has done his audience and his newspaper a great disservice.
Anyone who knows me knows I adore the New York Times. So, when my favorite paper delivers less-than the highest quality of journalism about a topic that affects me personally and professionally, I’m disappointed and offended. I’m glad that GLAAD took the time to dissect the Times piece and I trust all will be better for it.