All-too-common occurence illustrates a problem I encounter pretty much every week: A reader contacted reporter Randy Covitz and me about Covitz' story last week about gay athletes, after Larry Johnson's recent suspension for using the words "fag" and "faggot" on Twitter and while speaking to the media.
The reader's point was weak, but defensible: Shouldn't the story have quoted someone who thinks using those epithets is no big deal, and that homophobia is justifiable?
My own opinion is that the story did include a variety of voices, including Jayice Pearson saying he doesn't think Johnson meant it literally, and that the locker room is a place where insults of every stripe are common. Tony Dungy said, "It hasn’t been accepted. It’s a hard thing. It was not something that was talked about in the locker room when I was at Minnesota."
Should Covitz have found someone to express explicit bigotry? I fail to see the journalistic value there. But again, it's a defensible question.
Here, though, is where my reader really went off the rails. In two follow-ups, he launched into a breathtaking, spittle-flecked denunciation of gay people, whom he called "gross" and mentally ill. I ended the conversation there, as I don't care about anyone's bigoted personal thoughts -- and his rant was based on almost total ignorance of the science, medicine, sociology and history of homosexuality.
So here's my larger question: In my opinion, this reader's showing his true motivation behind his initial point makes me far less willing to air it. This is an extreme example of a phenomenon I deal with often.
And while I have to be honest that I more often encounter such intolerance with traditional "conservative" points of view, there's no shortage of straw men, untruth and invective from the left too, especially in matters relating to religion. The single most horrible thing I've ever heard a reader say was a personal insult of religion editor Helen Gray, whom he was mad at because she ran a "Faith Walk" column by an evangelistic Christian.
I don't think I've ever intentionally given major consideration to a point brought up by someone with not-so-covert bigotry as a motivation -- but should that even be a deal-breaker? After all, if it's a fair argument, it's a fair argument. Or do you think the questioner can legitimately poison the well in the broader context?
Motivation?
I can agree with VOR that the motivation of the person raising the question matters far less than your own assessment of the validity of his/her comment. Even in these enlightened times (?), it's not difficult to find people who demonstrate bigotry in any and all forms, whether it's counting the black faces in Star photographs or silently cheering Mr. Johnson's comments about gay people. I can also agree with you that there is little or any journalistic value in giving a forum to those who wish to express vitriolic or uninformed views -- I can't see you giving Fred Phelps a "faith walk" column, for example. Motivation is a funny thing, and difficult to assess -- I'm sure the Star receives numerous story ideas from folks who are motivated for personal gain, perhaps a modicum of fame, all kinds of reasons. If the issue is worth pursuing, I suspect the Star would pursue it no matter whose idea it was.
Difficult Issue
Nkroner’s posting is very reasonable, but he raises a difficult issue: “I can't see you (i.e., the Star) giving Fred Phelps a "faith walk" column.” However, refusing Fred Phelps the opportunity to write a guest column could be regarded as a violation of this provision of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics: “Journalists should … support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” The Code also says journalists should “tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.” Obviously, there’s no perfect answer, but journalistic ethics seem to give more weight to presenting all points of view than to protecting our sensibilities.
Very fair. In the
Very fair. In the individual you cite, though, it's still a question of outright bigotry, which I'd argue has little value to readers. I'm not sure you can call "all gay people will go to hell" a point of view that deserves an airing in a mainstream newspaper or its Web site. I'm trying to find a truly hilarious PJ O'Rourke quote about a student newspaper staff agonizing over whether to run an ad from the KKK or not. It sums up my feelings pretty succinctly.
Derek, you can have the last word on this.
I would only note that if we are going to censor people based on their level of condemnation of homosexuality, then there are a lot of people in addition to Fred Phelps who need to be excluded from the Star. For example, Billy Graham’s column is published in the Star, but there are numerous anti-gay statements on his website. Below are just two examples.
“We want to assure you that any willing person can be liberated from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” “If your loved one is not yet willing to seek freedom from homosexuality, or seems unable to find it, then you should pray earnestly for his or her release.” http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=79
“The Old Testament states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The New Testament agrees, listing "homosexual offenders" among a list of people who "will not inherit the kingdom of God" unless they are cleansed through Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).” http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=5
I think it'd have to be
I think it'd have to be limited to what was printed in the paper itself. I'd imagine an editor would reject a column that expressed either one of those views. But I'm not really sure, since I don't make those choices myself.
Two comments
1) I don’t think the motivation of the person raising the question matters in the least. As you said, if it’s a fair argument, it’s a fair argument, i.e., it warrants consideration.
2) The Star did give a voice to those who think “using those epithets is no big deal.” Consider these quotes from Jason Whitlock’s 10/27/09 column:
“There’s no way I release Larry Johnson. No way.”
“Hell, I’d give Johnson a bonus, a laptop to carry to practice and the green light to tweet 24/7.”
“[A] football player mumbling the F-word inside a locker room is about as surprising as a Klansman shouting the N-word at a cross burning, me passing gas at fat camp or an ESPN personality sexting with an intern.”
I honestly thought those comments were so extreme that he had to be joking, until I read this: “I’m not joking. I’m not being sarcastic.” If those comments from Whitlock (and the attitude they reflect) don’t cross the line into homophobia, they come dangerously close to it.