Massive protest in Paris (!) against same-sex marriage.

Who would have thought?

PARIS (Reuters) - Several hundred thousand people massed at the Eiffel Tower in Paris on Sunday to protest against President Francois Hollande's plan to legalize gay marriage and adoption by June.

Three columns of protesters, waving pink and blue flags showing a father, mother and two children, converged on the landmark from different meeting points in Paris. Many came after long train and bus rides from the provinces.

Pretty hard for the media to ignore this surprising development. But Tom Heneghan, Reuters' Religion Editor, coouldn't help taking a shot at the protestors:

Organizers insist they are not against gays and lesbians but for the rights of children to have a father and mother. [Emphasis added]

"Insists" suggests that the protestors really are against gays and lesbians; that the protest against gay marriage is a cover for  some  deep hatred.

Why couldn't the reporter have used "said" instead of "insisted?" It would have been more neutral. That's the way journalism used to be practiced. But no more.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I'd say they used the word "insist" because it's no longer credible to argue against gay marriage without revealing yourself to be against gays and lesbians having the same rights as heterosexuals.

    If this were really about the children, divorces wouldn't be allowed. Single mothers and fathers would have their children taken away from them and placed in "normal" households.

    Objectivity in journalism doesn't mean playing dumb.

  • What you're saying that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you're against gays and lesbians having the same rights as heterosexuals.

    Bunk. I have consistently supported traditional marriage, but I have argued that gays and lesbians should have the same rights of visitation, shared property and so forth as found in domestic partnerships. And supporters of domestic partnerships in Illinois pledged that it would not lead to an assault on traditional marriage. Not that their promise was worthy anything.

    Objectively in journalism doesn't mean playing done is true enough. But the reporter's bias in this case is clear and bias has no place in journalism, Jimmy.

    One last thing, Jimmy, you have turned people who honestly believe as I do into something they're not. You have set up a straw-man argument, suggesting that defense of traditional marriage is something more than that--that there's a hidden and sinister agenda. Or, as some would have it that we're "insensitive" or even worse, "homophobic." Some probably are, and I can't account for them. But it's not me. And there are plenty of others like me. Can you not engage in an argument without engaging in such obvious, illogical and unfair stereotyping?

  • fb_avatar

    As an "innocent" bystander, it is obvious both of you have an agenda and neither of you are objective regarding this dilemma. Insist is a good word and in its proper sense does not have the hidden meaning either of you attribute to it. In this argument, Dennis is insisting he is not homophobic and believes in equal rights, while Jimmy is insisting those who support traditional marriage are homophobic.
    The primary difference I see is Dennis is not attacking gays, but does not want them to be allowed to marry, while Jimmy is intolerant of Dennis' ideas; wants gay marriage to become politically correct. This is reminiscent of the ChicFilet debacle when the CEO was blasted for simply stating he favored same sex marriage.
    Insist is a wonderful word, denoting passion and purpose. We should always use good words in their highest and best sense; attack ideas and not people. In my feeble mind, we are all God's children. My sincere belief is we are in beginning stages of an age of awakening and all of these matters will resolve themselves in accordance with natural law regardless of how much we insist.

  • In reply to Robert Lowther:

    "Insist" is a fine word, but it is the reporter's view of things, a view that is heavy with connotations and judgment. Another example of why today's journalists don't understand the meaning of objectivity. In journalism school I was taught to look for neutral words. "Said" or "say" is such a word. Of course that was 40 years ago, and we all know that nothing said in those days makes any sense.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News