Deadspin: "The AP Is Gay for Stupid"

I've said many times before the quest for "objectivity" in newswriting is foolish. All sorts of non-"objective" decisions get made in the <a href=http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/3191439/">news process</a> and, in any case, the way journalists practice objectivity--A says X, B says Y--isn't very objective. I take it from my interactions on the board this is not a popular opinion. Given that, I'm curious what people think about this AP story mocked by Deadspin:

Deadspin story: http://deadspin.com/5913309/the-ap-is-gay-for-stupid

[quote author="Tommy Craggs"]So I'm reading along, enjoying this pleasant little story by the AP about UConn hockey players appearing in PSAs in which they not only pledge their support to "any teammate, gay or straight, that can help us win games" but do so with a welcome matter-of-factness—as if they were telling you something obvious and unimpeachable, like "change your smoke-alarm batteries"—and then I get to this part:
[/quote]

[quote author="AP"]Peter Wolfgang, president of the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut Action, said he has no problem with the team participating in an anti-bullying campaign, but he is concerned about the references to "homophobia" in the video.

"It's a very loaded political term," he said. "If we're going to be against bullying, then we ought to be against all forms of bullying and not just the kind that get us a pat on the back from politically correct elites. I would hope that people that have traditional beliefs, traditional faiths that they would not be bullied for holding views about morality or the definition of marriage."
[/quote]

 

And?

 

Eh, Deadspin had to mock something today, just like every day, so I guess this was it. Shit stops being funny when you're writing it just because you need the daily dose of Something To Mock From The Old World. They are so angry! They are so edgy!

 

So you think the AP did a good job in providing an "objective" story?

 

Based on the quote you presented, it doesn't look like anything is wrong. Peter Wolfgang looks pretty stupid to me, but it isn't the AP's job to protect him from himself.

The AP has to make sure all of its clients have what they need. That means those in central Texas as well as in New York and San Francisco. What Wolfgang is saying is hardly a non-mainstream opinion. I believe it's wrong, but it isn't as if he is spouting some "factual" information that is actually incorrect. It's his opinion and this is an issue that draws a lot of them.

 

It isn't the AP's job to give him a microphone, either. It's a story about possibly gay hockey players at UConn. Who gives a flying fuck what Peter Wolfgang thinks about the subject?

 

I don't know. Probably a lot of people. It's a news story in large part because of the reaction it is likely to generate.

 

I'll just outsource this to Craggs:

 

There was no need to outsource it, because he didn't say anything you aren't trying to say and he didn't do it in a clever or convincing way. Craggs merely has decided who's right and wrong and doesn't want to hear anything from anyone he believes is wrong.

The last time I discussed that jagoff on this board, it was when he couldn't even attack Colin Cowherd without making up the fact that Cowherd called John Wall a "nigger." (Something Cowherd never said.) I know there's a cult built up around Craggs and Deadspin and how everything they say is gospel, but he is an intentionally deceptive writer whose response to any different opinion is simply to WRITE LOUDER and try to shout everyone down with nothing but his anger.

This is an exercise in nothing.

 

And on the same token, Craggs is right in everything he said.

Why should someone like Wolfgang (or Fred Phelps, et al) be given a public forum?

 

It's pretty much a spot-on analysis of the main problem with journalism in America today.

 

Well here we are getting into qualitative and subjective difference, because I see a long distance between Peter Wolfgang and Fred Phelps.

Marketplace of ideas, etc. etc. It is perhaps an inconvenient truth to many of us that a good share of Americans -- maybe a third, maybe more, maybe less -- look at things the way Peter Wolfgang does.