Benjamin Sumner's Website

When a newspaper or television news outlet decides to spend excess amount of time reporting on a case – usually a criminal case – it’s not uncommon for competitors to follow suit and report on the same case as not to be outdone. It’s a classic snowball effect, and someone like Casey Anthony becomes a household name as a result.

But what happens when something equally, if not far more chilling happens, but the cameras aren’t focused in that direction? Take the cases of Linda Ann Weston and also Kermit Gosnell out of Philadelphia, for example. Weston is accused of kidnapping and holding mentally disabled people in dungeons – for years – to collect their Social Security checks (amongst other crimes). Gosnell operated an unregulated abortion clinic out of Philadelphia for decades, drugging and sometimes killing patients, while delivering babies and shoving scissors into their necks (amongst other crimes). This is Jeffrey Dahmer-level sickness, served on a platter for media outlets to cover and certain to become objects of readers’ attention. But it’s hard to find anything about these cases without setting up a Google News Alert.

Why wouldn’t there be more coverage of these cases, when other things get over-covered? Surely, editors know about them, but make a decision not to send reporters. While they may use budgets and staff shortages as an excuse, this rule gets broken all too often, especially when everyone else is covering the same thing.

I can’t help but view this as incompetence, and even bias, in the news industry.

UPDATE:

I wrote this post on Jan. 29, 2013. On April 12, my employer finally decided to cover the Kermit Gosnell trial.

Martin Baron, executive editor of the Post, tells the Erik Wemple Blog:

We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.

I had a roommate (the most disgusting and inconsiderate person I ever lived with, but that’s a different story), who got into the habit of watching religious programming. One night, the preacher was discussing homosexuality, loudly offering theories as to why folks are homosexual, citing things like the prenatal hormones theory while condemning it.

I can neither confirm nor deny the science behind these studies, but I’d venture to say that the preacher was using any info he had to further his cause against homosexuality, without citing evidence to the contrary or other theories that could be true.

And why would he? Likely influenced by selective biblical passages, he took the logical next step of embracing theories as to ‘what went wrong.’ Telling him otherwise would virtually be pointless because it doesn’t fit the ending that he’s believes, so he’d simply dismiss you as the opposition, who carries no credibility.

Put a controversial stance on the table, one that you are either for or against in its extreme. Now ask yourself: Is there even a single point against your view that is valid? If the answer is no, then congrats, you’re really no different than the preacher.

(Perhaps there are some exceptions. Despite thousands of years of slavery, I can’t think of a single ‘pro’ that its supporters can make that is worthy of consideration. But slavery is no longer a divisive issue so let’s just say times have changed for the better.)

I can think of four reasons why someone would be against gay marriage or even the general acceptance of homosexual people. One is that they’re motivated by religion, and selective religious passages, as per the example above. Another is blatant hatred, the same way someone would hate an entire race of people or a religion. The third is misinformation, which I believe is most likely to happen to younger folks who draw conclusions based on what they hear from their peers (people tend to grow out of this). The last reason is that some folks seem to be staunchly motivated by the dictionary (perhaps in conjunction with religious reasons), which defines marriage as  being between a man and a woman. Hate to break it to folks, but dictionary definitions change over time. Somehow faggot went from being a twig to a gay slur.

Those who are opposed to gay marriage based solely on the hatred of homosexuals may just be angry, bitter people and not easy to reason with. Those who oppose it based on religious beliefs certainly won’t be convinced otherwise by opposing protesters. Those who are grasping their dictionaries, refusing to let it be changed, should focus their attention on more important things.

Never mind that many Americans are smart enough to weigh the pros and cons of issues, understanding drawbacks of certain plans while still embracing them. This is about believing in something in its extreme. The legality of gay marriage can’t possibly be intrusive in their lives, and I have yet to hear a single logical argument against it. Yet there they are, fighting it, the same way people fought against the civil rights movement.

Like with slavery supporters or ‘separate but equal’ enthusiasts, the opponents of gay marriage will shrink over time, and future generations will look back in disbelief that so many people opposed it to begin with. But there will always be opposition, and those people will continue to fight their losing battle, or at least believe they’re right… and no argument can be made that will convince them otherwise.