Confusion Over Newspaper's Publishing Policy

Tweet

Last week Sunday (Dec.28), the Janesville Gazette included the marriage announcement of an openly gay local couple among a listing of “straight” marriage announcements on their “Celebrations” page. As it turns out, the couple exchanged vows in California on Nov. 3, the day before Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage in that state. The same day of the published announcement, the Gazette’s editor Scott Angus, offered his explanation of the newspaper's decision to publish the same-sex marriage announcement in a op-ed titled ‘Same-sex announcement leads to policy at Gazette.’

JG Excerpt:
I researched what others had done…….decided this one required input from others in the company…… wanted others with a stake in our company to weigh in. -- Gazette Editor

JG Excerpt:
Not surprisingly, their opinions varied, but the majority supported running the announcement. Their reasons ranged from supporting the couple and their right to marriage to avoiding a backlash from customers who would think we had discriminated against against the pair by not running their announcement. -- Gazette Editor

I’m not going to read too much into their “new” publishing policy on same-sex marriage announcements or how they arrived at their decision, but the editor seemed to go to greater lengths than what was necessary on this matter, all the while failing to articulate the newspaper's editorial position on same-sex marriage. Keep in mind that the editor's debate was merely about whether to publish the announcement - nothing more.

This is key because soon after the editor's explanation, the newspaper apparently was flooded with comments from all sides on their anonymous "Sound Off" column regarding the newspaper's publishing policy.

Sound Off Excerpts:
On Same-Sex Marriage:
"I commend the Gazette for recognizing and accepting gay and lesbian wedding announcements......it is gratifying to see the Gazette recognize basic human rights issues." -- Anonymous

"I was thrilled when I read the marriage announcement and more pleased to read the Editor's Views views by Scott Angus on the issue........."-- Anonymous

I can't blame readers for their reactions, but open-minded progressive folks are jumping to poor conclusions if they think that the Gazette’s publishing policy on this one issue is meant as an arm of support to carry the torch for basic human rights. It's not.

By submitting their marriage announcement to the Gazette, the couple forced the newspaper to make a decision they were not prepared to make. Instead it does appear the paper wryly used this policy event as a substitute to deflect public discourse away from their ideological position. The distinction between their publishing policy and their editorial activism is clearly drawn and readers should not confuse the editor's recent explanation as a compromise of this distinction. By publishing the same-sex marriage announcement, what then appears like a position in support of equal rights and free expression was really just another "business" decision.

If the newspaper really wanted a well-informed public knowledgeable enough for intelligent discussion on all the newspaper's policies regarding social issues including same-sex marriage, the editor(s) would do well by reiterating their position beginning with the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment Referendum of November, 2006. That would be a good start.

We now know where the Gazette stands on publishing legal same-sex marriage announcements - now we need to know where the Gazette stands on same-sex marriages. Refresh us.