In covering the demonstrations outside the Supreme Court yesterday, I was shocked and dismayed that the reporter -- and her editors -- felt it appropriate to broadcast an opponent of marriage equality who repeatedly used the word "fag" in her comments. While I understand the journalist's interest in presenting a full picture of the demonstrations, I imagine she could have generated plenty of comments from opponents of marriage equality from people who are not compelled to use the epithet "fag." Can you imagine broadcasting an opponent of Affirmative Action using the "N-word?" Can you imagine broadcasting a sexist's use of the C-word? The word fag is no less repulsive. It is no less violent.
Yesterday, the reporter almost seemed to chuckle at the animosity expressed between the marriage equality opponent and the proponent. She almost seemed to bait the opponent into using the word again, and again. Perhaps her motivation was to expose the offensive nature of the opponent's perspective, but that motivation was well-hidden.
As the nation navigates the road towards marriage equality, maintaining civil discourse will be more crucial than ever. The majority of Americans who now support marriage equality will only grow in numbers. Those who have an irrational fear of marriage equality will likely become more angry, defensive, and hateful in their rhetoric. Moving those opponents to move beyond epithets to civil arguments is critically important. As we saw at the court yesterday -- and in the original Prop 8 trial -- there is no rational basis for their opposition to marriage equality other than the irrational bias we call homophobia. Ultimately, their arguments collapse on themselves, or suggest that we reserve marriage only for those who can prove fertility or intent to raise children.
Giving voice to their epithets may expose their homophobia, but it also legitimates it. The word fag is used by bullies in elementary schools and street thugs who threaten and commit real violence. It does not belong on NPR without filter or comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Even if NPR's motivation was "to expose the offensive nature of the opponent's perspective," it is done at the expense of the millions of people who feel real pain, like a knife cutting into their soul, when they hear that word. Is it really worth it?
Post a Comment