‘Journalist’: Objective Reporting Doesn’t Apply To ‘Fundamentalist Wackjobs’
When Bennett interned for the Seattle Daily in 2003, she wrote with excitement about Canada’s legalization of gay marriage. “I was 19,” she recalled, “and picked a fight with my editor after being asked to call a fundamentalist wackjob for ‘an anti-marriage quote’ – you know, to show we were objective.” Sadly, she was not allowed to exclude that, er, bigoted, homophobic, hateful viewpoint.
Later, after winning a coveted GLAAD media award, Bennett again argued over objectivity with her Newsweek editor. “When asked to insert an anti-marriage quote – this time for an article I was writing about a new generation of gay activists,” she declared, “I argued again. This time I won.”
This was a victory indeed for the young woman who had been “touting equal rights in the best way [she]could as a journalist since the beginning of [her]career.”
So, last week, Bennett was understandably blown away to see her article “Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?” referenced in Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. In that document, Roberts drew a parallel between gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry and the recognition of polyamorous relationships. “There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any,” he stated.
“This was not an article about the LGBT community at all,” Bennett whined about her polyamory piece. “Rather, it was about a group … from whom gay rights activists have long attempted to distance themselves specifically to avoid the kind of association Roberts drew.” The polyamorists she interviewed weren’t looking to redefine marriage at all, Bennett said. “They were looking to break the shackles of the institution altogether.” Better and better! More