Coverage of the LGBTQ Community by the Media
An analysis of the media coverage of the LGBTQ community pre/post the Trump administration.
Mainstream media plays a large role in shaping and determining how our society views the LGBTQ community. The media not only brings awareness of the community at large, but also has the power to change long-standing, homophobic ideas and shift how the country interacts with LGBTQ citizens with increasing understanding and compassion. A plethora of research and studies have been conducted since the early 1990’s about how LGBTQ youth look toward the media to educate themselves about their new blossoming sexuality. The paradigm shift that occurred with the birth of the internet greatly changed the amount and accessibility of resources available to anyone with an internet connection. As LGBTQ activism started to maturate, with organizations like GLAAD (Gay &Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), the Human Rights Campaign, The Matthew Shepherd Foundation, and Noh8 Campaign, the LGBTQ community was becoming more vocal and visible and therefore, covered more by the mainstream media. With TV shows and movies casting gay characters as the rule not the exception by 2020, one could say that this is a far cry from when Ellen DeGeneres “came out” on her TV show “Ellen” in 1997, and subsequently was fired and blacklisted from Hollywood. (Oh, but what a comeback she has made!) The LGBTQ community made extraordinary headway during the Obama administration, with the appeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” from the military, to a Supreme Court ruling ending the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA) and a federal ruling extending “Hate Crimes” to include people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is just a few examples of the major “wins” for the LGBTQ community that was wildly covered by the media on both sides of the political spectrum during the Obama administration. The country bore witness to these great freedoms that were extended to the community and through extensive media coverage and social media connection, were able to celebrate with the LGBTQ community, bringing a sense of unity and fellowship that was unprecedented.
There has been a drastic change in the media’s coverage of the LGBTQ community since President Trump took office in 2016, compared to Obama’s time in office. It is often difficult to prove something that is not happening compared to something that is happening because you can easily have tangible evidence of what is occurring. Research concludes that this change has occurred. There is an ethical responsibility for journalists reporting, since President Trump took office until the present, and the question remains whether they are operating under the guidelines of the SPJ Code of Ethics. To provide perspective we will look at the probable viewpoints of the philosophers Aristotle, Kant, Mills and Rawls in order to highlight the tumultuous road that the study of ethics has taken and how it applies to the subject matter I am bringing to light.
The human rights for LGBTQ citizen’s has been steeped in controversy, with religious zealots believing we all are evil and condemned to eternal hell, to a group of the population who believe that sexuality is something that can be altered with “conversion therapy” or a deep faith in the God of their understanding. Focusing on the ethical responsibility of journalist’s coverage of the LGBTQ community, we will look at some data and statistics that steer clear of the controversy of who’s religious beliefs are correct by looking at what the hard results of reporting has proven. Keeping in mind the old adage: “Statistics lie, and liars use statistics”, fact-checking has been conducted to provide the truth through analysis and research from informed trusted sources. Since Trump has taken office the environment of our society as a whole has become increasingly hostile due to domestic terrorist groups like White Nationalists and neo-Nazi’s coming out of hiding and openly spouting anti-Semitic hate-speech in mass protests.(Protest in Charlottesville) Two of the deadliest mass shootings, at places of worship (always thought of as an untouchable place, even for terrorists), in American history have occurred in the last three years adding to the rising temperature of anti-Semitism, racism and a hot bed of hate, that has perpetuated more hateful attitudes to feel welcome and encouraged to breed. President Trump has a history of mocking the disabled, the Latino community, the LBGTQ community, immigrants, women, foreigners and teenage climate activists. This is not opinion; this is documented recorded events that took place. The eyes of our youth and every citizen of America usually looks toward the president of our country as a role model, knowingly or unknowingly in some capacity, since he is the person who is the leader of our country, purportedly the strongest country in the world.
This bullying and hate that is exemplified, glorified and broadcasted on every mainstream media outlet of our president, is having a trickle-down effect, infecting and persuading the minds of our country, especially our youth who have malleable, still-forming brains. The organization GLAAD has recently published numbers that show a decline in tolerance from the younger generation, which historically has been the most accepting generation of the LGBTQ community. There is a backslide that is occurring since Trump has taken office and it is the responsibility of journalists to give a voice to the voiceless. Journalists have a responsibility to cover stories regarding marginalized groups like the transgender or non-binary community which has a shockingly high murder rate compared to other marginalized groups. To speak for these groups is a directive from the SPJ Code of Ethics, yet there has been an immense loss of media coverage over this community. The ethical reasoning behind why this is taking place has no validity and it needs to change. To prove there has been a decrease in the coverage of the LGBTQ community I searched online to find companies that crunch numbers and data to display trends in online searches or general trends taking place in the mainstream media. This graph below shows the decrease in news coverage on the LGBTQ community since Trump has got into office. A Chicago-based polling data aggregator processed numbers from Television News Archive’s, which was able to go through transcripts to analyze the frequency that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC use the words “gay” and gays” on the air from July 2009 to August of 2019.
The blue line represents CNN, the orange is MSNBC and the grey line represents Fox News. The study took into account variants of these terms and included “lesbian”, “LGBT”, “LGBTQ” and “transgender” and it made no significant change in the results shown above. As you can see, the multiple spikes and dips that occurred from August of 2009 until August of 2016 is clearly showing the mainstream media’s continuing coverage of the LGBTQ community until it hits August of 2016. There we see a clear flatlining of news coverage of the LGBTQ community, which leaves many unanswered questions. One might say the public’s interest is simply not there, and the news was simply covering where the public’s interest was at the time. This would then contradict the numbers that have surged on the Google search engine platform, including these same key words during this same time period, showing a large discrepancy between the public’s interest and the media’s failure to report.
It has been proven that media in all forms have an immense impact on how marginalized groups are treated and accepted in the real world. The Millennial generation which includes “digital natives”, a person born or brought up during the age of digital technology, has shown the biggest drop of acceptance and support of the LGBT community, with the erosion in acceptance especially happening among younger males. This has come as a shock to many activist groups because historically this was the age group that had demonstrated the largest amount of support. What is being seen is a decline in coverage of the LGBTQ community, an increase in hate-groups being covered by the media outlets, and now a marked decline in acceptance from the younger generation. Taking note that this is the age group that consumes the most amount of media in all of its forms. The newest statistics about LGBT youth state that they seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate than heterosexual youth and are five times more likely to attempt suicide. A study was conducted that spoke to a decrease in the amount of suicide attempts in the LGBTQ youth after gay marriage was legalized in all states. If the media was not covering these events, I am sure that decrease in the amount of suicide attempts would not have been as notable. The headway that was made during the Obama administration is slowly being stripped away by the current administration and journalists are shirking their ethical responsibility to cover it. In the case just mentioned, lives were literally at stake due to the coverage of the community during the historical landmark of equality with the right to marry.
Based on a Intercultural Communication Study that was conducted came to a split, well-debated, conclusion that while the increased amount of news about LGBTQ issues and amplified presentations of diverse sexual identities in news media has empowered the community, and helps to shift the image of the community in the public’s eye, some scholars argue that mass media merely reflects the mainstream of public opinion. Whichever way one chooses to view it, there has been a decline in coverage of the LGBTQ community despite the incline of interest based on Google searches. According to the “SPJ Code of Ethics” under the first principle which is “Seek Truth and Report It”, it states: “Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.” The money that is involved with mass media broadcast is a large topic and could have an entire book devoted to the subject. The advertisers that support the media networks should not have a say in what is broadcasted, but we live in a capitalistic society and what “should” happen and what “does” happen are often two entirely different things. This adds another factor into an already complicated equation of the coverage of the LGBTQ community by the mainstream news outlets. If the advertisers are opposed to the content running on air, than the news media outlet panders to the advertiser’s by changing content for fear of losing financial backing.
We as a society went through enormous shifts in thought, multiple mass epiphanies and a renaissance of the human spirit and mind to get to the world we live in today. The brilliant philosophers who provoked thought and questioned institutions, are who we have to thank for being able to live in a society where we have right’s like “freedom of speech” and “free and independent press”. It was these independent thinkers that inspired all who came after them to follow in their footsteps, and to never stop questioning and exploring their own truths. Considering how the great philosophers we have studied this semester might express their viewpoint on the topic I am reporting about, I came to the following conclusions. Aristotle stressed the point of avoiding the two extremes of excess and deficiency, then by using “practical wisdom” one could achieve moral virtue and to be in the line of sight of the “beautiful”. Kant’s “categorical imperative” may be a useful theory, but as a person he was not devoid of his own prejudices, like those against women’s right to vote or looking down on the poor. I am most certain Kant in this instance would not fall in with the right-extremists but would back the marginalized few. Mill’s theory of “the greatest good for the greatest number” would not have backed the idea of wasting time or money on such a small percentage of the population. Looking at the percentage of people the LGBTQ community accounts for, it would not be considered the greater good, yet Mill’s may have reconsidered when he saw the ripple effect this group of people has within our society.
This brings me to the philosopher Rawls and his idea of “original position” and how it is directly linked to the journalist’s creed of objectivity. Although I gained a great deal of knowledge and understanding from each and every philosopher we have studied, Rawls spurred a connection and brought clarity of thought about how a journalist should approach their work. Rawls philosophy of “a veil of ignorance”, clearly displayed the undeniable importance of objectivity and approaching every story, person or situation with child-like eyes. When making critical choices, like whether to cover certain stories, Rawls brought up three main points to take into consideration.1. They matter. 2. We don’t “know” who they are. 3. We should get to know who they are. I believe these three statements are very powerful when put into the context of the ethical decision’s journalists should be making when it comes to covering or not covering stories concerning the LGBTQ community. Since there has been so much past coverage and controversy, igniting fiery fatal attacks and continuing division along party lines, Rawls “original position” could be a very useful tool as a journalist. Rawls suggestion of putting all past knowledge aside and coming to an issue with a clear objectivity, free of biased, preconceived notions and prejudicial thought. Studying Rawls was the catalyst for me to see and grasp the full knowledge and importance of keeping objectivity at the forefront of my mind when writing as a journalist.
Works Cited
1. www.advocate.com/media/2019/9/18/report-lgbtq-media-coverage-vanished-after-trumps-election
5. www.scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=honors-theses
6. www.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/09/fact-sheet-obama-administrations-record-and-lgbt-community
7. www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-discrimination-guidelines
8. Kurtz, Howard. Media Madness Donald Trump, The Press, And the War Over the Truth. Washington, DC, Regnery Publication. 2018
9. www.thinkwithgoogle.com
Ethical Journalism- Coverage of the Coronavirus and The Pandemic
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON 03/23/2020
A quote from Dr. Elliott's book “Ethics for a Digital Era”, bore great significance when applying it to the outpouring of journalism during this tumultuous period in the world. The quote reads: “The virtual world provides unprecedented opportunities for people to make change in the physical world”. Now, more than any other period in the history of the digital era has there been a call for journalists to whisk away the dust covering their copy of the “SPJ Code of Ethics” and write with the weight of the fate of the world on their shoulders.
This may come across as sounding needlessly poetic or as hyperbole, but in the case of adding your voice to the Coronavirus conversation and the three-ring media circus that is currently playing out on the world’s stage, it is certainly not. This is where I would slow down the pace of information. I think by shortening some of the sentences it would help solidify my focus and the information would come across more clearly. Taking out some of the metaphors would help as well. With an unprecedented crisis, come unprecedented lows that some journalists in our society may stoop to unless those covering this pandemic provide content that is informative, educational, truthful, unbiased, and lacks ulterior motives. Unfortunately, ulterior motives have already run rampant alongside the coronavirus, with leaders and news outlets playing the blame game and politicizing this virus, pouring gasoline on an already raging fire. There is an upcoming election and a billionaire president running for a second term in office, who obviously has one trained eye on the plummeting stock market. The timing of this global pandemic increases the complicated ethical choices that each journalist needs to make. Do we report on the fact that our president is willing to put our society back at risk for Covid-19 in order to save the stock market? Is it their right to know? Should the two topics, although inexplicably intertwined, even be brought up during this global crisis, or will this add to the panic and the rising fear that is blanketing our globe?
The enormous slant the news outlets have taken from each respective side of the political spectrum is a huge contributing factor in the unethical journalistic output. Dr. Elliot wrote about the philosopher Mill and his idea that people should place themselves in the mindset of their opponents to really understand their own beliefs.
This ideology has significance, even though on the surface we theoretically should be on the same side, attempting to defeat this “invisible adversary”. If it was as simple as: we have a virus that is spreading and killing people, and we all need to work together and do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the human race, we would have much less panic and I believe much fewer fatalities and new cases of the virus.
In the article by Denis Muller, he breaks journalism, regarding the coronavirus, into three categories: health advice/ informational, entertainment, and rubbish (conspiracy theories). This is a good starting point for a journalist looking to write about the pandemic because they could ask themselves the question: which of these three categories will my story fall under? That might solve an ethical dilemma for a writer from the beginning. The fine line that is being walked by respected journalists attempting to make ethical choices, is to contribute to the public’s access to knowledge and updates about Covid-19, without adding to the rising anxiety and panic that is on a slow boil across the world. In many cases this is impossible because of the drastic, unpredictable nature of the pandemic, simply reporting the facts without sensationalizing them still causes widespread fear.
A certain level of fear is necessary in order to contain and eventually stop the virus. If we had no fear we would not be as proactive to follow precautions and guidelines as they are becoming increasingly stricter. In order for everyone to follow the guidelines outlined by our government, journalists must highlight the importance of following these guidelines and the consequences if they are not being adhered to. This may cause some journalists to enter the realm of speculation, which is unneeded considering the bare facts are disturbing enough without speculation or amateur hypothesis of what “could” happen if these guidelines are not followed. This type of journalism would fall into the third category of “rubbish” and is counterproductive for the state of our fragile world.
There are “sides” to this pandemic because our president politicized this virus creating an “us vs. them” polarity in an already highly polarized society, unearthing deep-rooted racism at a time where every passing hour is a new case of the Coronavirus. Some racist, hateful people labeling this the “Kung Flu”, have wrongfully placed blame on China. If this is the case, we should be “Bat-shaming”, since the first transmission was supposedly from a bat to a human. This is to show the ridiculousness and ignorance in the racist views that are gaining attention because journalists are choosing to write stories regarding these extremist hate-filled views.
In a time when unity and working together are paramount, should a journalist be sharing material to further divide us as a society and allow ignorance to take the lead? This is another example where the ethical choice of the journalist was to pander to these ridiculous views for sensationalistic headlines instead of informative, responsible journalism. Dr. Elliot writes about “audience segmentation” when mentioning how most citizens consume news information that does not take them out of their comfort zone. The danger that is revealed with this concept is that misperceptions are formed and then reinforced by consuming more news content online that reinforces these misperceptions. This cyclical way of consuming media is contributing to the polarity that exists in our society not just in the political arena but in our society at large. This concept could be the most dangerous and unethical area a journalist could fall into while covering the pandemic.
This also speaks to faux-journalists who simply want to put their two cents in, at a time when we need not muddy the waters any more than it already has been. I think before a journalist publishes their story they should ask themselves this question: “Would I want my 90-year-old, frightened grandmother, who lives alone reading this article?” If the answer is “no”, then you might want to rethink the motivations behind why you are publishing the article in the first place.