Real Thought

The headline on Reuters coverage of the Senate debate on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is, “Senate takes up gay-rights ban amid criticism.” Does anyone see that this is just a little exaggeraton? The Senate isn’t debating banning gay rights, the Senate is debating banning gay marriage. These are two very different issues. In most states, including mine, the People’s Republic of California, gays do not have the right to be married. As a matter of fact, marriage is defined in California as “a union between a man and a woman.”

I guess the editors at Reuter’s didn’t read their own disclaimer, which states “Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.” Nothing like trying to put a writer’s or editor’s personal opinion on a story. There is currently no right for gays to get married, hence the debate. There is no debate of banning gay rights. This is pure sensationalism at its worst. No wonder most Americans are so woefully informed of the events in their own country and the rest of the world. Is a little accuracy in reporting too much to ask?