Andrew on sexual orientation in the news
The question that caught my attention during class today was whether 'announcing' a person's sexual orientation is relevant to a story. As Mike alluded to, there are a variety of factors that can complicate this issue, chief among those being the question of sensitivity.
Where do we draw the line? What if a source wants their sexual orientation to become part of the story? Do we cater to their desires? Do we ignore such desires? How do we, as journalists, balance fairness with the 'shock factor' stories about non-traditional sexual orientation inherently contain?
I think it can be damaging to the industry if journalists become mouthpieces for gay and lesbian groups. Sure, we should handle these issues with care. We should be sensitive. We should be humane. But a person's sexual orientation should only be mentioned in a story, if and only if, society benefits from such defined attention. (I.e. The horrors of the Matthew Shephard story.)
The Web site we discussed in class today made an interesting point. It said journalists should make include a person's sexual orientation only if it's relevant to a story. "Relevancy", in my opinion, is a cut-and-dry issue. There should be no room for risking a PC foul, if you will. Most journalists have a dearth of knowledge about gay and lesbian relations to begin with. Therefore, if it's absolutely necessary to discuss the topic of sexual orientation in a story, I think it's imperative for a journalist to investigate the PC boundaries of reporting on such an issue. Otherwise, a reporter risks offending an entire population.
There seems to be parallels between the current state of gay and lesbian affairs and the early days of the Civil Rights Movement. Once more education -- and subsequently, understanding -- is gained about the topic, maybe journalists can move toward eliminating the 'shock factor' of reporting on gay and lesbian relations in America. Then, and only then, gay and lesbian individuals will begin to be viewed as peers rather than society's spectacle.
Where do we draw the line? What if a source wants their sexual orientation to become part of the story? Do we cater to their desires? Do we ignore such desires? How do we, as journalists, balance fairness with the 'shock factor' stories about non-traditional sexual orientation inherently contain?
I think it can be damaging to the industry if journalists become mouthpieces for gay and lesbian groups. Sure, we should handle these issues with care. We should be sensitive. We should be humane. But a person's sexual orientation should only be mentioned in a story, if and only if, society benefits from such defined attention. (I.e. The horrors of the Matthew Shephard story.)
The Web site we discussed in class today made an interesting point. It said journalists should make include a person's sexual orientation only if it's relevant to a story. "Relevancy", in my opinion, is a cut-and-dry issue. There should be no room for risking a PC foul, if you will. Most journalists have a dearth of knowledge about gay and lesbian relations to begin with. Therefore, if it's absolutely necessary to discuss the topic of sexual orientation in a story, I think it's imperative for a journalist to investigate the PC boundaries of reporting on such an issue. Otherwise, a reporter risks offending an entire population.
There seems to be parallels between the current state of gay and lesbian affairs and the early days of the Civil Rights Movement. Once more education -- and subsequently, understanding -- is gained about the topic, maybe journalists can move toward eliminating the 'shock factor' of reporting on gay and lesbian relations in America. Then, and only then, gay and lesbian individuals will begin to be viewed as peers rather than society's spectacle.
posted by Andrew Astleford at
7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home