A Little Editorial Advice for the Herald-Leader

by Martin Cothran

What you think is newsworthy is a measure of what you think.  For most people, it is news that a public university would hold a special session on lesbian health issues.  For the Lexington Herald-Leader, however, this is not news.  What is news is that anyone would have a problem with it.

That’s why the Herald-Leader’s front page story about two state senators who had asked questions about a Women’s Health Conference at the University of Kentucky tells us a lot.

For those who missed this headline story on July 19th, the two senators had expressed concerns over a University of Kentucky women’s health conference because of a special session the conference boasted on lesbian health issues.  The special session has the full support of UK President Lee Todd.

Is it really surprising to the Herald-Leader that anyone would have a problem with this?  Do they really think that in a state that only four years ago passed a law barring recognition of same-sex marriage there are no readers out there who would balk at having their public institutions promoting behavior they find morally objectionable?

Does the Herald-Leader really think the expressions of concern are news?  Of course it doesn’t.  It’s not news; it’s advocacy journalism.

One of the rules of advocacy journalism is to make those with whom you disagree out to be not only wrong, but positively evil.  That’s why in the Herald-Leader’s editorial the next day (if we can distinguish editorials from news stories at the Herald anymore) the two senators in question were not only accused of being wrong about their concerns, they were labeled the “bigotry brigade.”

Now this is interesting.  My dictionary defines a bigot as “one intolerant of the views of others.”

Hmmm.  I wonder what we would find if we looked up the word hypocrisy?

The Herald Leader knows quite well that many of its readers hold traditional views about human relationships and that they get a little impatient with institutions they are asked to support with their tax dollars that act in ways that undermine those views, particularly when it comes to educating young people.

But although they are not bigoted, they can be excused for being a little confused sometimes at the rhetoric of the gay rights movement and newspapers like the Herald-Leader who promote it.

One of the reasons we are asked to accept the political demands of the gay rights movement is that gays should be treated just like everyone else.  Okay.  So far, so good.  People with traditional views on such things can easily understand that.

But what they don’t understand is when—after just being told that gays should be treated just like everyone else—they are suddenly asked to treat them differently.  In fact, not only have gay rights groups asked to be treated the same, they have painstakingly downplayed the health risks of the sexual behavior that is their defining characteristic.  We are given the impression—if not told outright—that there are no significant health risks to homosexual behavior.

Then we are told that they need special sessions at public health conferences held under the auspices of public universities.  Why?  Because there ARE significant health consequences to their behavior!

Now the Herald-Leader knows very well what makes good news.  The mundane and usual is not what makes headlines: it is the unusual that attracts attention.  A dog-bites-man story, it has been said, is not news: a man-bites-dog story is.

So if the Herald-Leader was really looking for news (and that may be assuming too much, but this is for the sake of argument), they missed a golden opportunity.  What they should have done was gone with a headline like this:

“Gay Rights Movement Reverses Itself: Admits Health Risks and Asks to be Treated Differently.”

That’s news.

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization dealing with public policy issues that affect families.