MDIA 2002- Analysing Media Communications
Assessment 4- Views journalism article 2
Anita Blanco- z3465375
Homophobia Vs. Equality
Exposing the progressive shift of gay couples in the Australian mainstream media
The ethical battle surrounding the legalization of gay marriage has long been a
contentious issue dominating Australian mainstream media. Instigating heated
debates fuelled from both sides of the spectrum, recent events in the political
realm to formally authorize gay matrimony, is indicative of a shift in the moral
maturity of society. While this implies the development of a culture that is
accepting of a growing gay community, severe opposition still exists that serves
to undermine this apparent progress.
Interestingly, while the articles analyzed offer starkly divergent viewpoints, the
arguments advanced are overtly persuasive. This implies the existence of an
audience that is nonetheless, entrenched by an unwavering sense of ambiguity
surrounding the issue.
The first half of this article will expose the opposition that continues to plague
the dimensions of Australian media. This representation will be examined via a
range of views and commentary articles from the Courier Mail, Newsweekly, the
ABC, the Herald Sun, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph.
Although the aforementioned opposition is still prevalent in current mainstream
media, there has arguably been a sympathetic shift in sentiment towards the
issue. The latter part of the article will explore this apparent shift through an
analysis of articles from the ABC, the Age, and the Conversation. This analysis will
support the primary conclusion that gay couples are represented as victims of
injustice, who deserve the same equality granted to heterosexual couples
regarding marriage rights. This victim representation blatantly suppresses
traditional religious orthodoxy that was a widespread phenomenon in mid1900’s and prior years- an era devoid of the floundering social movements that
were ever so prevalent in its forthcoming years.
Rather than the media attempting to acknowledge religious rationale, recent
coverage suggests that marriage, and subsequent reproduction, should not be
limited solely to heterosexual couples. Interestingly, this representation still
propagates a vast plethora of vicious slander from opponents, who still position
gay couples as second best in contemporary Australian culture.
The obvious rejection of gay couples in mainstream media over the past five
years is evident through the analysis of headlines from a range of articles:
“Same sex marriage hurts kids”- 2010 (Courier Mail)
“Same sex marriage and it’s consequences”- 2014 (News Weekly)
“Gay marriage push is a slippery slope”- 2011 (Herald Sun)
“Australia is not ready to say ‘we do’ to gay marriage”- 2011 (Sydney Morning
Herald)
“A same sex union is not a marriage”- 2010 (Daily Telegraph)
The nature of the headlines clearly presents a recurring pattern that situates gay
marriage in pool of condemnation. The short and abrupt structuring of the
headlines reinforces the disapproval in an explicitly direct manner that
immediately reveals the positioning of the author. Gay marriage is automatically
anticipated to perpetrate negative implications by means of assumption, for
example, “hurts kids”, “is a slippery slope”, “not a marriage”. These stringent
assertions abolish the potential for contrary perspectives to be considered.
Rather, gay marriage is immediately depicted as being problematic in stern
allegations that fail to even consider the alternative.
It is necessary to look at these articles in further detail to substantiate the
conclusions proposed. Firstly, lets take a look at Gerard Calilhanna’s article
published in the News Weekly in 2014, “Same sex marriage and its
consequences.” Gerard uses factual claims, appeals to authority and alarming
statistics to represent gay marriage as erroneous, and not appropriate for its
potential ramifications.
“American scholar Professor Susan Brown has shown convincingly that children
fare better in stable, two-parent families.”
“Nordic countries typify this trend, having out-of-wedlock birth rates above 50 per
cent. This is a tragedy with unfortunate sociological effects on children,
undermining their need for a stable, supportive household underpinned by the
marriage of their mother and father.”
“In his report, For Kids’ Sake (2011), Sydney law academic Professor Patrick
Parkinson AM has said of these American findings: “There is no reason to believe
the situation in Australia is any different.”
The nature of the words ‘convincingly’ and ‘no reason to believe’ reflects an
assertive transcendence that offers no regard for homosexual tolerance. He
utilises emotive terms, ‘tragedy’ and ‘unfortunate’ rendering sympathetic
sentiments for children who are depicted to suffer inevitably under the marriage
of homosexual couples. The appeals to authority reinforce the validity of the
argument as highly respectable bodies and numerical data, theoretically, cannot
be refuted.
“Australia risks jettisoning its “bedrock institution of our society” in legislating for
homosexual “marriage”, and faces a tragic fallout in the areas of social policy,
children’s rights and needs, threats to personal and religious freedoms, and direct
harm to marriage itself — including everyone’s marriage being redefined.
Australia must see five fingers on a hand when five are presented, in this case the
reality of what marriage is, rather than pretend that they see as real what certain
pressure groups declare to be so. Australia should look to have no dealings with the
issue of homosexual “marriage”, save its outright rejection, and should plan to
strengthen marriage and increase its health level in our society.
This lengthy quote used to wrap up Calilhanna’s article introduces every
sentence with ‘Australia’. The inclusive proper noun of ‘Australia’ illustrates that
we will suffer as a whole nation if gay marriage is legitimised. The repercussions
depicted indirectly depersonalise gay individuals, who are arguably ignored as
citizens of this country for the consequences their desires may entail.
The absence of quotes from these homosexuals present them as undesirable
citizens, whose opinions are not justified for publishing. This is reinforced in the
negative demeanour that that is so obviously exhibited throughout the entirety
of the text. The flip side to the legalization of gay marriage is inherently
overshadowed as the nature of the following sentences (and many more) simply
perpetuates the dramatic ramifications.
“The lessons for Australia are clear. First, empirical evidence of the destructive
nature and effects of homosexual “marriage” is being produced already.”
“Evidence is beginning to filter through that detail the consequences of legislating
for homosexual “marriage” across nations and states.”
Now lets take a look at Andrew Errington’s 2013 article, “Same sex marriage,
what is really at issue,” published in the ABC. This article draws on religious
sentiment amidst a tone of traditional conservatism to intensify its opposition.
Perhaps not as heated as the previous, Errington similarly alludes to factual
claims and appeals to authority to emphasise opposition.
Marriage is described in the text as, "an honourable estate," meaning that it is an
"institution" which demands respect in and of itself, and not simply by virtue of the
choices and sincerity of those involved. That is, marriage as such, and not simply
particular marriages, deserves respect and protection.”
This declaration can be attributed to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, a
traditional virtue from an authoritative body that should therefore not be
disputed or undermined. This technique represents traditional ordeals of
marriage as timeless and ultimately still appropriate for contemporary society.
“These, then, are among the reasons for the way that marriage was understood for
many centuries, and for why it continues to be understood this way by many people
- including many Christians - who are yet to be persuaded to abandon Jesus's
teaching that, "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female ..."
and that, "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Mark 10:6-8).”
The core conviction of this view further underlies the apparent relevance of
these ancient concepts today, which are used to further highlight the immorality
of gay marriage.
“The older view is not without empirical support or intuitive credibility. There is
wide and ancient cultural testimony to marriage as a basic fact of human life.
Moreover, for many people, it is eminently reasonable to believe that, as Jennifer
Roback Morse puts it, "the concepts of 'Mother' and 'Father' are natural, prepolitical concepts," and to conclude on that basis that male-female marriage is also
something natural, and so not simply a convention to be wilfully manipulated.”
The constant reference to conventional means reinforces the apparent
worldview. The segregation of homosexuals as second-class citizens is rife, yet
reference to respected entities seemingly enhances the credibility in a manner
that essentially justify his claims. This view serves to reinforce the large faction
of society yet to conform to the modern norms, rather, wanting to preserve
traditional conventions.
It is now necessary to examine the diametrically opposed views regrading same
sex marriage. Current media coverage offers a more pragmatic response to the
contentious issue, corresponding with the progressive shift in social morality
that characterises contemporary society. Firstly an ABC article by Senthorun Raj
published in 2012 will be analysed. The headline of the article relays an
immediate proposition into the inherent need to conform to the ideals of modern
culture, or in this case, the US. It reads,
“Obama supports gay marriage, why can’t our leaders?”
This rhetorical question is overly condescending suggesting that if ‘Obama’, one
of the world’s most influential leaders, supports the movement then there is no
reason why ‘our’ leaders should not be acting congruently. The opening
statement by Obama symbolises that homosexual inequality is an aged
phenomenon, which should cease to exist under the flourishing social
movements of current society.
"I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly
and equally."
The reference to such a monumental figure not only adds exceptional validity to
the central claim, but also is suggestive of a flow on effect dispersed within
Australia if even the world’s most powerful leader encourages the cause.
French president Francois Hollande and UK Prime Minister David Cameron are
also referenced in the article, forging analogous views with those of Obama. The
overriding concern for Raj is that if highly significant world leaders are
distancing themselves from the realms of conservatism, then why is Australia
still swarming in doubt? He uses a rhetorical question to show his stance
reading,
“ With increasing support shifting across the broad international political
spectrum, the question remains: why do our political leaders continue to oppose
equality for all Australian citizens?”
While civil unions are in place to formalise gay relationships, an obvious sense of
segregation still permits. This persuades readers to believe that same sex
marriage may not be necessary given that civil unions forge the basis for
legitimisation. However, it is difficult to validate this assumption given that
support for same sex marriage in Australia is remarkably strong. Raj appeals to
factual claims via statistical data to substantiate this claim stating,
“Here in Australia, community support for marriage equality is stronger than in the
US, fluctuating around 62 per cent.”
The use of this undisputed statistic gives the impression that the nation is
genuinely progressing towards accepting the issue, however there is still a
disturbing 38% in need of convincing.
Raj denotes some minor political reform addressing apparent solutions for the
widespread inequality.
“Major state and territory legislative reforms have complemented these federal
changes: same-sex families have achieved recognition in areas of adoption, foster
care, assisted reproductive technology, and surrogacy.”
While we can be praised for our innovative amendments, civil unions are still
regarded as adequate remedies to the lack of formal recognition granted to same
sex couples. Australian mainstream media is swarming in articles regarding this
issue, many of which render emotive and persuasive undertones. This assumes a
faction of society that openly condemns the legalization of same sex marriage
perhaps at first glance.
Lets take a look at a commentary news article entitled, “Same sex marriage
debate closer to tipping point,” by Christine Forster in the Age in 2013. This
article addresses the incremental shifts in public opinion toward supporting
equality for same sex couples. The article’s optimistic tone, conveyed via means
of personal anecdote and factual argumentation, represents that change is
forthcoming and the ‘tipping point’ is near. The article opens with a case of
mistaken identity, how the author was mistaken as a close-minded liberal with
an evil agenda. In the same way as this thwarted portrayal was revived, for
Forster, so too can the issue of gay marriage. She conceives,
“This artistic project, however, had changed her view of politics and opened her
eyes to how people so often blindly accept as absolute truth ideas and opinions we
have never thoughtfully considered.
In some ways a similar thing is what has been and still needs to happen in
Australia's debate about same-sex marriage.”
The warrant for this argument suggests that gay marriage is condemned because
it is simply misunderstood. While citizens are up to date with social
advancements, it is now in the hands of the legislators to act in accordance with
the will of the people, under a liberal democracy that grants freedom and
equality for all. This warrant is backed up with appeal to authority via numerical
data and statistics,
“our national discussion on same-sex marriage has come a very long way in a
relatively short period. According to opinion polls cited by Australian Marriage
Equality, 62 per cent of us support and only 33 per cent of us oppose same-sex
marriage. But clearly that is not yet an obvious majority, at least not to our
legislators.”
It suggests that public opinion favours the reform and it is in fact the legislators
in need of convincing. While this seems like a dire circumstance, the promising
nature of the article is further propagated with an appeal to authority, namely,
Quentin Bryce.
“It will not be an easy task, but the debate has shifted towards the centre and the
cause is being taken up by Australians such as Governor-General Quentin Bryce,
who command respect and admiration, and whose support will influence many.”
The warrant for this argument is that while reform is still in a state of obscurity,
transparent support from largely influential figures in Australian politics is
suggestive of a positive outcome.
The argument closes with an argument that appeals to consequence,
“As a middle-aged Liberal who managed to sway the view of a young, left-leaning
actor, I am full of optimism that the tipping point is coming.”
This suggests that if a vibrant and strong-minded individual can be detached
from her stern political alignments, then so too can politicians. It implies that a
thorough comprehension of gay marriage, and perhaps a touch of sympathy can
together combine to facilitate the change to legislation that will eventually
legalise gay marriage.
The aforementioned articles heavily targeted the negative consequences of
legalizing gay marriage for its subsequent effects on society. Paula Gerber
contradicts this representation in her article, “Marriage is best for raising
children… that’s why we need marriage equality,” published in the Conversation
in 2012. Gerber positions the prospect of gay marriage in a positive light for its
potential to raise a stable household. Gerber appeals to authority, to
consequence and uses emotive language to reinforce this depiction of gay
couples. She uses impassioned language to describe the experience of
homosexuals, which instantly invokes concerned sentiment for the subject.
“Unfortunately, we still live in a society where gays and lesbians are subjected to
attacks and vilification because of their sexual orientation. The arrest on Thursday
night of Daniel Folkes from the Channel 10 TV show The Shire, for allegedly
urinating on a man while two other cast members held him down and shouted
homophobic insults is evidence of the risks and dangers that gay people still face.”
The reference to the T.V series emphasises that it is a locally premised issue, and
that homosexual insults and attacks have been disproportionally intensified in a
manner where it has become socially acceptable.
Gerbard’s passionate tone and rhetorical questions, project to her readers that
she has a genuine concern for gay couples and a stern belief in the positive
implications that marriage will have on their kids.
“What do we, as a society, say to these 6,120 kids when they ask why their parents
aren’t allowed to marry? And how can we claim that society should not treat these
children differently, when the government treats them differently, saying their
families are not entitled to the sanctity and respect that comes with the institution
of marriage?”
This representation is further reinforced with appeals to facts and consequences.
In this case, examples stemming from a global scale are used, showing how such
countries that have supressed conservative ideals, have not suffered in the
aftermath of their decision.
“There are numerous countries around the world that have already legalised samesex marriage, some more than a decade ago, and the evidence clearly demonstrates
that the institution of marriage has not reduced in significance in those counties. If
anything, respecting the human right of sexual minorities to marry elevates the
institution of marriage to a higher level.”
The article concludes with an appeal to consequence, coupled with emotive
language to further perpetrate the affirmative implications of legalizing
marriage.
“It is time we as a society started to treat all our children better. And one way we
can do this is by allowing same-sex couples to marry so that those 6,120 children
recorded on the latest census have the same opportunity to be raised by married
parents as their counterparts with heterosexual parents.”
The punchy sentiment of the opening line reinforces the need to legalise
marriage in order to preserve the welfare of children. By appealing to
consequence the inferences are rationally portrayed to the reader and provokes
thought in those holding divergent perspectives.
Comparison of media materials over the past few years relating to same sex
marriage has made it clear that there is a plethora of conflicting attitudes. The
analysis of these media materials has shown that while conservatism continues
to permeate, a shift in attitude towards support for legislation is beginning to
heighten. Even though the Australian media project more sympathy for same sex
couples, as evident from the attitudes within the political sector, it appears that
homosexuals will have to continue pushing for legislation. Nevertheless, the vast
array of opposing articles surrounding the issue is an allusive reminder that this
is a widely dispersed phenomenon, entailing a range of ethical considerations
that need to be addressed.
References
Raj, S, 2012, ‘Obama supports gay marriage- why can’t our leaders?’ The ABC, 5
October, accessed 4 Oct 2014,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/raj-obama-gay-marriage/4003202
Forster, C, 2013, ‘Same sex marriage closer to tipping point’, the Age, 12
February, accessed 7 Oct 2014
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-debate-closer-totipping-point-20131202-2ylug.html
Gerber, P, 2012, ‘Marriage is best for raising children… that’s why we need
marriage equality, the Conversation, 29 Aug, accessed 7 Oct 2014
http://theconversation.com/marriage-is-best-for-raising-children-thats-whywe-need-marriage-equality-9137
Calilhanna, G, 2014, ‘Same sex marriage and its consequences’, Newsweekly, 15
March, accessed 14 Oct 2014
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56519&s=WcWMPF
Errington, A, 2013, ‘Same sex marriage, what is really of issue’, ABC, 30 April,
accessed 14 Oct 2014
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/30/3747877.htm