Protests are usually designed as attention-grabbers, publicity-seeking events. But liberal reporters cannot be dragged to a conservative protest. Thursday’s “March for Marriage” was blown off by The Washington Post and The New York Times. Attendance too small? The Post has written 10,000 words glorifying three anti-nuke protesters. The Times thinks four illegal aliens hiking is a hot protest story.
Only pro-gay news is news. Friday’s Times led the National section with “Presbyterians Allow Same-Sex Marriages,” complete with happy color photo. Friday’s Post wrote a story previewing the Obama administration’s move to include same-sex couples in family-leave policies (updated version online).
While the Times story by Laurie Goodstein quoted members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) who disagreed with the “More Light Presbyterians” pushing the gay agenda, the Post story by Juliet Eilperin was an Obama administration press release, down to the line about “White House officials...asked not to be identified in advance of the official announcement.” The Post couldn’t wait until Saturday...and could not imagine anyone opposing this progressive plan.
Before the march, I tweeted at Post writer Dan Zak, reminding him that five years ago, he wrote up an anti-circumcision protest and splashed the "intactivist" agenda across the front of the Style section. (He also wrote the massive "Prophets of Oak Ridge" piece.)
Washington Post humorist (and former Sunday Style section editor) Gene Weingarten represented the media’s viewpoint in reply on Twitter:
@TimJGraham There were 2,000 people. The fact that they were hateful religious fanatics is beside the point. Point: 2,000. Not news.— Gene Weingarten (@geneweingarten) June 20, 2014
@TimJGraham Your grandchildren are going to be ashamed of you. But my guess is you'll never tell em you were against marriage equality.— Gene Weingarten (@geneweingarten) June 20, 2014