RECENT  POSTS:  » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry » Video: AFA prez expounds on organization's movement-destructive ad by adding even more religious fervor  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/30/2008

AFA: More in-AP-propriate than ever

by Jeremy Hooper

We all know that the American Family Association's One News Now site changes the AP wire so that words like "gay" instead read "homosexual." And in the wake of the recent "Tyson [Homosexual]/ Rudy [Homosexual]" incident, most of us began to assume that these changes are due to an automated coding that the AFA has implemented. But are they? Or are these changes done by the hands of AFA staffers who simply cannot let any non-hostile terminology slip through the cracks?

Well consider this. This morning, we were shocked to see the following One News Now headline in our RSS reader:

Picture 15-49

Shocked, because we never seen this "news" outlet refer to us as gays, nor refer to our unions simply as marriages. So we, wanting to know if the AFA had possibly turned over a new leaf, clicked to the story to see how it reads on the One News Now website. Sure enough, the AFA's trickery has been put back in place:

Picture 14-54

Yes that's right -- they have again altered their presentation of the AP wire so that gays become homosexuals, and marry as a truth becomes "marry" as an allegation. And what's weird about this one is that we have physical, tangible proof that the AFA first used the AP's gay-neutral terminology (which you can read, as intended, on Yahoo!'s version of this AP story) before changing it so that it fits their far-from-gay-neutral agenda. Someone or something had to literally stop what they were dgino and intervene, making a deliberate choice to play anti-gay editor to this AP writer's work!

Simply unreal.

Mass. House votes to let out-of-state homosexuals 'marry' ['AP' via ONN]
Mass. House votes to let out-of-state gays marry [Actual AP via Yahoo!]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Wanted to see how they editted the story. In the first paragraph 'marriages' is in quotes, all gays are changed to homosexuals. But no where else in the story is marriages in quotes! Because they are discussing ALL MASS marriages then, including their own. Too funny.
with lots of chicken little comments.

Posted by: LOrion | Jul 30, 2008 10:56:56 AM

They also did not put quotes around "married" in the following passage:

"Sometimes what you hope and pray for actually happens, which is kind of overwhelming," Michael Thorne, 55, of Cape Elizabeth, Maine, said after telling his 6-year-old son his parents could soon get married.

Was it just to blatantly cruel and ridiculous to mock an actual family with a child?

Posted by: Phil | Jul 30, 2008 12:26:43 PM

Nothin' says AFA like letting scare quotes try and make your point for you!

Posted by: zortnac | Jul 30, 2008 1:02:28 PM

I'm on the One News Now Email list and this was in my inbox this morning:

"Mass. nearer to letting out-of-state homos_xuals 'marry' - OneNewsNow Daily News Summary (Wednesday, July 30, 2008)"

Apparently "homosexual" is also offensive and has to be partially censored, too. My guess is that their readership probably has anything with "homosexual" in the subject line automatically filtered as spam or sent to the trash that this was the only way to get it to their people intact.

Posted by: Jason D | Jul 30, 2008 1:11:18 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails