CNN Omits Conservative Voices in Reports on Homosexual Campaigns

Photo of Matthew Balan.

President Barack Obama; & Wolf Blitzer, CNN Anchor | NewsBusters.orgTwo reports on CNN’s Situation Room on Wednesday about President Obama’s extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees and the campaign to overturn Proposition 8 in California featured only left-wing sound bites, and none from conservative opponents of homosexual activists.

The first report from correspondent Dan Lothian, which aired just after the beginning of the 4 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, included clips from a homosexual federal employee and his “husband” who was afflicted with pancreatic cancer, as well as Joe Solmonese of the liberal Human Rights Campaign. Over an hour later, Jessica Yellin’s report on Proposition 8 opponents’ efforts to overturn the ballot initiative which made same-sex “marriage” illegal again, featured two leaders from California “progressive” organizations, the Courage Campaign, and Equality California.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

An on-screen graphic during the first segment emphasized “gay anger over pres.’ slow action.” Anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Lothian’s report along a similar line: “Some of President Obama’s biggest supporters have been- not necessarily been entirely happy with him in recent months. Gays and lesbians say he has been slow to act on their top priorities, but today, some same-sex couples will start getting some benefits.” After detailing the new benefits and featuring the federal employee and his “husband,” both the correspondent and the anchor underlined the “enormous amount of pressure to start doing something, as far as these important gay issues are concerned:”

President Barack Obama; & Dan Lothian, CNN Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgLOTHIAN: Now, there’s pressure on the president to push hard.

JOE SOLMONESE, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: He must call on Congress to give him that legislation that would provide health care benefits for the domestic partners of federal employees- that would complete the picture.

BLITZER (on-camera):It was- he has been under an enormous amount of pressure to start doing something, as far as these important gay issues are concerned- hasn’t he, Dan?

LOTHIAN: He really has been under a lot of pressure. You know, I asked Robert Gibbs today at the briefing whether or not that pressure was what led to today’s memorandum. He says, not at all- this is something that had been in the works for quite some time, and he said- but I pressed him on that, in terms of the timing and the pressure on the White House, and he said, listen, there are interest groups who have concerns and opinions, but he stopped short of saying whether the White House felt any pressure at all from these groups to sign this memorandum today, Wolf.

Jessica Yellin’s later report on Proposition 8 opponents, which began 18 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of The Situation Room, all but heralded the strong push by “progressives,” who were apparently inspired by the Obama presidential campaign, to overturn the voter-approved initiative, exactly a year after the California Supreme Court handed down its decision to legalize same-sex “marriage:”

WOLF BLITZER: Meanwhile, it’s a bittersweet anniversary for same-sex marriage proponents in California. Our national political correspondent, Jessica Yellin, is joining us now with more on what’s going on out West. What is going on, Jessica?

Jessica Yellin, CNN Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgJESSICA YELLIN: Well, Wolf, you know that opponents of same-sex marriage are well-funded and well-organized in California. But now, those who support same-sex marriage say Proposition 8 ignited a new grassroots movement, and that progressives here in the state are determined to legalize same-sex marriage in California as early as next year.

YELLIN (voice-over): Activists are marking the one year anniversary of the day gays and lesbians were allowed to marry legally in California by vowing to reverse Proposition 8.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Undividing love.

YELLIN: Prop 8, passed seven months ago, made gay marriage illegal in the state once again.

RICK JACOBS, COURAGE CAMPAIGN: It was a real wake-up call, and in a very interesting way, I think it’s the best thing that’s happened to the LGBT movement in a long time.

YELLIN: Rick Jacobs runs the pro-same-sex marriage Courage Campaign, and says members of his group believe Prop 8 passed because progressives took their eyes off the ball, and they want the issue back on the ballot next year.

(Crowd chants “Equal rights!”)

YELLIN: Now, they’re taking a page from the Obama playbook. A year before the next election, they’ve launched a ground campaign- already, sending 1,000 volunteers to knock on doors across California.

JACOBS: Our job is to train people, and to go out and talk to people, and to tell stories and to change minds.

YELLIN: His group isn’t alone. Equality California, another same-sex marriage organization, is about to air this ad targeting the African-American community, which CNN polling shows overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage in California.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: At its core level, it’s just totally unfair to actually take away anyone’s right.

MARC SOLOMON, EQUALITY CALIFORNIA: We want to show these images, get people to help people get to know gay couples and their families and spur conversation.

YELLIN: Leaders of the same-sex marriage movement say winning new supporters will be difficult, but they’re hopeful that progressives energized by the Obama victory will make this their next campaign.

YELLIN (on-camera): And, Wolf, there’s also an ongoing court fight over Proposition 8. And now, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is weighing in on the issue. In a court filing, he said he believes it’s up to the courts now to decide whether or not same-sex marriage is constitutional- Wolf?

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Jessica Yellin, for that update.

One would conclude from the one-sided nature of the reports that either conservative defenders of traditional marriage were unavailable, or CNN wouldn’t inconvenience itself to contact them.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Honestly

Can someone give a VALID argument as to why Gay's can't marry? Please, don't give me any bible thumping BS about how it goes against God's will or that it's prejudiced in the Bible or blah blah. Those are NOT good arguments. I don't hear anyone arguing for owning slaves simply because it's ok to do so in the bible (in other words, no religious hypocrisy).

What I'm asking is, as a conservatice, is there any *good* reason i.e. economics. Seems like you "privacy loving, individual rights loving" "conservatives" sure don't mind sticking your nose in other people's business.

<end rant>

Common Good

Well, if you want to use a "common good" argument, there's an economic and societal impact of divorce and the breakdown of traditional marriage, in terms of the proven impact on the children of parents who divorced. These kids too often have broken lives of crime, welfare dependency, and psychological issues. Allowing homosexuals to "marry" would magnify that, as has been observed in European countries that have allowed that.

hmm

Actually, you could argue that adoptive gay couples would be doing society an economic favor by taking kids off state funded hands. While I admit that two gay men having kids is a strange idea, I'm sure letting the "negro" run free back in 1865 was just as strange an idea to many as well.

Allowing homosexuals to "marry" would magnify that, as has been observed in European countries that have allowed that.

You know better than that. Links please.

 

Link

Thanks for the link..but

Thanks for the link..but really? The weekly standard? That neo-conservative rag of a magazine?

This article is pretty funny. No where in it do they provide evidence for the equation that gay marrige is ruining straight marriage. By this author's calculations, the increase of overall marriages decreases overall marriages *lol*.

Second, to conclude that gay marriage alone is the cause for any one outcome is, statistically speaking, preposterous. To argue against Andrew Sullivan et al's thesis that gay marriage increases overall straight marriage, he says things like "But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married." So he can argue that their evidence is flawed, but we're supposed to believe his isn't?

Lol, I loved this one: "Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage
decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off
divorce until their kids are grown.
" -BWAAAHHHHHHAHAHAH ROFL. This is an embarrasing article as a reader. This makes absolutely no sense. So gay's are to blame for straight people staying together until there kids our grown and out of the house? Hmm, I thought that was just due to love on the parents part. Clearly my brain can't handle such logic.

My questions is why do

My questions is why do "gays" want to marry at all?  This push for "gay marriage" doesn't make sense.  Marriage is an ancient tradition, steeped in the religious culture the "gays" claim to disdain and which the entire "gay" community is in rebellion against. 

The only possible logical answer is that the reason they want the government to recognize their "marriages" is because they want to stick their business into other people's noses.  They want to shove their way of life down everyone's throats and poke traditional society in the eye while they're at it.

Correctamundo.

Exactly.

This push for "gay

This push for "gay marriage" doesn't make sense.  Marriage is an
ancient tradition, steeped in the religious culture the "gays" claim to
disdain and which the entire "gay" community is in rebellion against. 

I tried to warn you about arguing the "biblical" viewpoint of marriage being a "sanctimonious sacrament". Yea bullshit. Men and women have been cheating on each other since before getting married was cool. Answer me this: Has marriage changed over time or has it always been about the love between a man and a woman. This answer may send shivers down your spine.

It's funny how those arguing this position don't go FULL BOARD with following the bible. Stoning people to death, sacrificing children, slavery etc. And if you say these are Old Testament traditions that the NT got rid of, EHH wrong. Murder, death, raping, pillaging etc are ubiquitous throught the bible old and new.

The only possible logical answer is that the reason they want the government to recognize their "marriages" is because they want to stick their business into other people's noses.  They want to shove their way of life down everyone's throats and poke traditional society in the eye while they're at it. 

Well, being a conservative I don't think the gov't should be in the business of marriage anyway, but, since they ARE, I'd say everyone has an equal shot at the right's that are associated with marriage. I guess those damn blacks were sticking there business in our noses when they wanted to be set free. Why damn them why!

Yeah, given your bizarre

Yeah, given your bizarre theories on a few issues, I'm going to take your view on marriage with a grain of salt.

Please elaborate. If my

Please elaborate. If my "theories" on guns scares you, you may want to go join a liberal blog.

edit: Forgot to say way to go on pulling out the straw man argument. Typical.

Well, given how little you

Well, given how little you know about me, how can you say "typical"? And, to clarify, I'm not opposed to your gun stance.

Your right, I don't know

Your right, I don't know you. I don't have to. From your one response I have all the info I now need to say what I did.

Care to debate now?

 

I didn't bring up anything

I didn't bring up anything biblical.  Read it again without your God-Hating bias.

I was saying thaty there is no reason for Gays, who flout every other traditional value to be pushing to be allowed to participate in one.

You illogic is amazing.  Just because people have been committing crimes and sins since time began doesn't make it right - duh.

And don't you DARE try to equate beibg black with being homosexual.  That is not only a huge non-sequitur, it's an insult.

You don't like people sticking their noses in everyone's business, right?  Neither do I.  But I also don't like people sticking their business in everyone's noses. 

The push by the militant gays for state recognition of their "marriages" is nothing more than a jab at traditional society and an atempt to get government approval for their lifestyle.

Why they want this is anybody's guess, - I have my views on that.

I didn't bring up anything

I didn't bring up anything biblical.  Read it again without your God-Hating bias

Hmm, I remember you saying something like "... Marriage is an ancient tradition, steeped in the religious culture...". Plus, I can't hate anything that doesn't exist.

And don't you DARE try to equate beibg black with being homosexual.

Apparently I have to explain every detail of everything I say. I was comparing the slaves of the 1800's with the gays of today. Please re-read.

I think a lot of

I think a lot of conservatives would support some sort of civil union but I am against changing the very definition of marriage. If we do that then we're opening a very big can of worms.

Lol..as I questioned in

Lol..as I questioned in another post, has marriage ALWAYS been what it is today? Clearly you know the answer to this (or I would hope so). Since the answer is "Uhhh....no it hasn't" then your definition of marriage isn't even what it was 1000 years ago.

Many marriages were really just barter for something tangible. Many did not have anything to do with love or the promotion of the "family" which many now'a'days are so scared of losing (even though straight couples are doing just fine at embarrasing this concept).

True enough but would you

True enough but would you then allow any consenting adults to marry each other? After all who are you to question their love for each other? What about siblings etc?

Hmm, why not? If two

Hmm, why not? If two consenting adults want to marry what's to stop them? Oh I forgot...you.

I find it funny/hysterical/ that many who are against gay marriage and other forms of incest believe in the story of creation (you know, the one that says a super being puffed everything into existence). This means that from two people, Adam and Eve, came everyone. Uh...HELLOOO! Incest anyone? lol

Strawmen burn fast, I never

Strawmen burn fast, I never mentioned Adam or Eve. It is not myself who is blocking a couple from engaging in incest it’s actually the law currently on the books. If you wish to change this then feel free to try but be prepared to accept the results if your arguments fail to attract public support.PS: Please keep the HELLOS! and the LOL’ing to a minimum. It makes you look like you’re simply whiling away your time here whilst waiting for the next Miley Cirus movie to come out.

Sorry if my "lol'ing" upsets

Sorry if my "lol'ing" upsets you. I know it makes it look even worse to be out witted by someone who says "lol." You'll get over it.

Hay Infidel, your moslem buddies have no homosexual problems

 

- May 6, 2002: In the Netherlands, a
Dutch politician was shot six times upon entering his limousine after
finishing an interview at a radio station in Hilversum, east of
Amsterdam. He was openly gay prime ministerial candidate who was
campaigning on a ticket to reform public services and to end
immigration. Economist reports that Fortuyn wanted to halt immigration
from Muslim countries out of a fear that Muslims would "erode the
country's tolerance of homosexuals." In November 2002, Volkert van der
Graaf admitted to murdering Fortuyn. He stated that he perpetrated the
assault to protect Muslim immigrants.

Any thought on  "clitorectomies."?

Bash away on Christanty lol'er.

Reagan VS Carter and 0bama

→ Obama's all for it

If he'll defend a "woman's right to wear a hajib" certainly he'll defend a child's right to be mutilated beyond the possibility of ever experiencing sexual pleasure.

It's a Moslem thang.  You wouldn't understand.

Outwitted? Now that is

Outwitted? Now that is funny. Anyway I'll not be continuing this unrewarding intercourse any further.

Worship of the Anus doesn't qualify for Marriage

Most Human Beings regard the anal orifice as a bodily tool, for expelling flatulence and human waste.

Homosexual 'Men' regard the anal orifice, as 'Central' to their identity and the object of passion, adoration, sexual fulfillment and their reason for living.

...and their reason for

...and their reason for living.

Lol...Easy there. Reason for living? I take it your "reason for living" (as if there is just one) is the vagina?

Internet access

ThoughtPolice - I thought they cut off your Internet access at the asylumn again?

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

Modern Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.

Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.

They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.

The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.

The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.

'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.

The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.

Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.

Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course would be a violation of privacy rights.

Every American Citizen has the same right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex as any other American Citizen.

Good grief Sebastian

Are you in there arranging matches again?

Hee hee...troll.

Hee hee...troll.

How about

How about just saying that Homosexuality is unnatural....period.

ThoughtPolice wrote

ThoughtPolice wrote: ..."Clearly my brain can't handle such logic. "

I haven't seen any Logic that your brain could handle.

 

 

rofl...way to go. You and

rofl...way to go. You and this blog's author should get together and compare other ways to NOT give arguments.

Yeah, and one should label

Yeah, and one shouldn't label other people's religious traditions "BS" as you did above. That's not the way to gain respect on a CONSERVATIVE blog.

Don't you just love trolls?

Don't you just love trolls?

Lovely they let TP out

Lovely they let TP out again to come and play...just lovely.

Dkos is calling for your return TP.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

BT, I know you thought I

BT, I know you thought I was gone but I'm BACK! Well, at least for a while until I'm bored of dealing with juvenile responses.

 

Funny TP...I never gave you

Funny TP...I never gave you a second thought one way or the other.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

ThoughtPolice Question for you?

I wasn't trying to refute anything, you haven't written anything but questions and declarative statements, so far there is nothing you have said to refute.

I was making a declarative statement about your dyslexic logic and myopic reason.

Do you think all chosen behavior should have Constitutional Rights and Protections?

 

Hey Thought Police...

Have you ever thought what the consequences would be if we DID allow "gay" marriage?  What's next???  Two women and a man?  Two men and a woman?  How about a man and his sheep?  Or a woman and her dog?  How about brother and sister marrying?  Hell, why not a mother and son or father and daughter?  Just WHERE do we draw the line?  NONE of the above is for the BETTERMENT of society.  Draw the line at ONE man and ONE woman being married.  THAT is the gold standard for a healthy and prosperous society.

I DEFY you to find ONE instance of where homosexual marriage allowed by society that has NOT been disasterous for said society.  Just ONE.  I bet you can't.  LOL

One

One instance?

Denmark.

Now what?

Wow the stupidity on this

Wow the stupidity on this board is, well, stupefying.

What's next???  Two women and a man?

Lol, I guess you don't know that it is legal in some states for a man to have multiple wives???????????????????????????????????????

Classic post by someone who only espouses what they THINK and don't KNOW. 

Do you think all chosen

Do you think all chosen behavior should have Constitutional Rights and Protections?

I see no reason why not assuming no one is injured/killed and no physical damage done to physical property not belonging to the perpetrator.

Offensive behavior to one is acceptable behavior to another. Who is right and who is wrong? This is the same argument against gov't hand outs and I'm sure your against those, right?

wrong spot

wrong spot