Terry Mattingly and the other intrepid bloggers at GetReligion can frequently be found policing the 'Net for signs of anti-religious bias in the mainstream media. But sometimes their peculiar (read: Christian traditionalist) notion of what constitutes bias shows up loud and clear.I'm talking about this post by Mattingly that discusses this exclusive article by reporter Christopher Morgan. The headline on Morgan’s article reads: "Church to let gay clergy 'marry' but they must stay celibate." That, says Mattingly, "says it all." He envisions a million people picking up the paper, reading the headline, and "shouting, in unison, 'Say WHAT!?!?!'"
But here's the deal. Read the article. If it's reliable, then the headline and first paragraph (the lede that Mattingly expects will be so shocking) are certainly inflammatory and inaccurate.
According to the piece, the proposal drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury is not to allow clergy to marry. It is to allow clergy who choose to have their already existing domestic partnerships recognized by law not lose their licenses as clergy. There is no new decision regarding marriage and no changes to policy concerning sexuality.
Reporter Morgan's decision to insert his own editorializing (putting "marriage" in sneer quotes in the headline and first paragraph) is questionable to say the least. The word marriage carries religious and emotional overtones that, all agree, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not. Allowing clergy to have their already existing domestic partnerships receive civil recognition is not the same as affirming gay marriage, so this bit of editorializing has no purpose unless it's to elicit the "Say WHAT!?!?!'" reaction out of homophobes of various persuasions. Shoddy journalism, for sure.
The response by the ever-vigilent GetReligion anti-bias patrol: Whooops! Looks like they were so busy expressing shock that Anglicans might actually be giving gay clergy a thin sliver of greater dignity for their committed relationships that they didn't even notice.
Updated: Ouch! Even Andrew Sullivan parrots reporter Morgan's deceptive "marriage" line uncritically. He even loses the sneer marks. Shame on him. Here's the context:
The Church of England will allow its priests to marry their partners under Britain's looming civil partnership provisions, civil marriage in all but name. But they will have to promise they're not having sex...Why say that priests will be able to "marry" when it's domestic partnerships that are the issue? Judging from a Google News search, it looks like the shoddy "marriage" meme has become the defacto headline on this story in most media outlets. Here's one report that gets the headline right ("Rowan Williams to Authorise Controversial Civil Unions for Gay Clergy.") --------
