Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 12, 2012
Media Today in the Proven Connection Between Gay Marriage and Child Porn
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM
I don't want to make too much hay out of what I believe is an honest mistake. A sloppy mistake and the sort of mistake that is literally the job of editors to avoid, admittedly, but an honest one. However, folks keep complaining about the News Tribune's combination of front page headlines today, one about "gay marriage" immediately above "child porn as evidence":
- Via Slog tipper Steve
"Some people interpreted it as trying to connect the two stories sexually, when it was our intent to connect them legislatively," explains Jim Kresse, head of the Tribune's copy editors, who had nothing to do with the layout. The paper had simply tried to bundle legislative matters of the day: gay marriage and child porn. The page was actually laid out under on the watch of David Montesino, the deputy managing editor for visuals, but he's out of the office today at an editorial retreat.
"It was not our intent to make a connection between child pornography and same-sex marriage," Kresse continues. "I can see how people would make that connection, certainly. We certainly regret that people got upset about it."
Mary Anderson, a team leader for the editorial assistants at the Tribune, who I spoke to briefly admitted, "It is kind of an odd juxtaposition."
1
Their comments would have more weight if they regretted making the connection rather than just regretting that people got upset.
2
"It was not our intent to make a connection between child pornography and same-sex marriage."
Yeah. Right.
Yeah. Right.
4
Of course, two headlines that run together in a way that makes unintended sense is known as a "boner".
5
There are still some idiots out there that use the HORRIBLE term "Gay Marriage" when the issue IS NOT ABOUT GAY, but about EQUAL Civil Marriage. When the idiots STOP putting "GAY" in front of marriage, this little faux pas will not exist. Then they can run all the Kiddy Porn stories next to the Marriage stories and no one will notice. "Gay Marriage" is a destructive term, always has been always will be. Use it at the peril of Gay Americans that want to get Married, NOT "Gay Married" not "Str8 Married" not "Opposite Sex Married" not "Same Sex Married" JUST MARRIED.
6
Why do people continue to use the "sorry people were offended" line? It's a signifier for "I don't care what you think, here's some verbal blather to quiet you down."
8
Jesus, Internet AKA Conspiracy Theory Generator - I'm gay, I used to work in the same newsroom with all of these VERY NICE people. I can guarantee you this was not on purpose. Yes, Jim should have said "we regret the error" and the error should have never happened in the first place. But these are all hard-working, well-intentioned journalists who put out a big, complex product every single day with forever shrinking resources. Errors like these are bound to occur and it makes life, and journalism, so much better when you give yourself that context.
9
All that said, I do totally agree with @5 - I would love if copy editors would come up with an alternative for the term "Gay Marriage" considering it's not, nor will ever be, a thing.
10
Fuck anyone who makes a nonpology. Oh, so you regret that people got upset about it? So you'd be totally fine with looking like you were trying to connect the issues of child porn and equal marriage rights for gays if no one had gotten mad about it? Die in a fire.
11
#9 how about "Marriage" as the radical alternative term? I know it's radical and cutting edge, but I like it.
12
Sorry, but the head spanning the two unrelated articles connects them. That was deliberate on the part of whomever did the layout.
13
This is such a throwback to the bad old days. Before about 1995 it was almost a given that any positive story about gay issues would be juxtaposed next to a graphic story about sex abuse, rape, or child pornography.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was completely unintentional, but it would be nice if the paper makes a stronger statement about this mistake.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was completely unintentional, but it would be nice if the paper makes a stronger statement about this mistake.
14
Can someone remove the "awesome person" tag from @10 as it is false advertising.
@11 - Yes please.
@12 - It was deliberate in that both stories are from the same legislative session and they were teasing to more legislative coverage inside. it was not deliberate in its attempt to link to two beyond that. This is an open and shut case of someone paying more attention to the pieces than the whole.
@11 - Yes please.
@12 - It was deliberate in that both stories are from the same legislative session and they were teasing to more legislative coverage inside. it was not deliberate in its attempt to link to two beyond that. This is an open and shut case of someone paying more attention to the pieces than the whole.
15
I like how this article is under a picture of twink(ie)s and says "better get 'em while you can"... presumably because the hot twinks will marry each other? (and with parental consent, get married at 16 and make child porn that will make the articles make sense together, finally)
16
They don't seem connected to me -- different background color, different font. My eye doesn't go directly from one to the other. They shouldn't have done this since it's possible to read the two headlines in a row, but seeing them as one story is a stretch.
17
@16, step back and look at it. There are vertical and horizontal lines around it, separating it from other stories.
@14, The headline does not give the impression that it is a section about the legislature, only that gay marriage is up for a vote. And as for the people there being so nice there's no way this was intended as something bad, I find that hard to believe. It's the front page, it's scrutinized by far too many people before it goes to press. I don't buy it.
And they did a GREAT job of connecting them legislatively. What the fuck is their connection legislatively other than they are both being voted on? Again, NOTHING in that boxed out section of the front page hints that there is a section inside that is about all the various votes going on. Just gay marriage and kiddie porn. The N-T is the Times' conservative little sister. They know who their base is.
@14, The headline does not give the impression that it is a section about the legislature, only that gay marriage is up for a vote. And as for the people there being so nice there's no way this was intended as something bad, I find that hard to believe. It's the front page, it's scrutinized by far too many people before it goes to press. I don't buy it.
And they did a GREAT job of connecting them legislatively. What the fuck is their connection legislatively other than they are both being voted on? Again, NOTHING in that boxed out section of the front page hints that there is a section inside that is about all the various votes going on. Just gay marriage and kiddie porn. The N-T is the Times' conservative little sister. They know who their base is.
18
@5 Sorry, Sara, but I heartily disagree. The issue is precisely gay marriage and changing the language won't accomplish the goal, in my opinion. I'm gay; I'm married, I use the term, and I'm not an idiot. Controlling the language is not the solution; the solution is to get people to not jump out of their socks when they hear the term, which we are rapidly accomplishing. Eventually, when everyone can get married, the term "gay marriage" will fade away naturally, organically.
(This is wholly different, in my view, from getting people to stop using offensive terms like the N-word, F-g, R-tard, etc. These are negative terms, and the fewer kids hear them, the fewer adults in the future will use them and think it's okay.There's nothing negative about gay marriage.)
(This is wholly different, in my view, from getting people to stop using offensive terms like the N-word, F-g, R-tard, etc. These are negative terms, and the fewer kids hear them, the fewer adults in the future will use them and think it's okay.There's nothing negative about gay marriage.)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS