It would be fascinating to learn more about USA Today's decision to feature so prominently a photo of two men kissing on the front page of this morning's edition. Has the paper done this before?
The cutline says: "After the Supreme Court decision, Paul Katami, right, asks his partner, Jeff Zarrillo, to marry him."
[Image: photo by J. Scott Applewhite of the Associated Press, via Newseum; see all today's Gannett front pages.]
[Image: photo by J. Scott Applewhite of the Associated Press, via Newseum; see all today's Gannett front pages.]
Further stirring controversy, the paper promotes on Page One a column inside by occasional columnist Josh Gad, where the TV star compares Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to a Star Wars character who has become a symbol of evil and sinister deception in popular culture.
ReplyDeleteComparing Scalia to Palpatine is the least of Gad's offenses -- at least to those in the newsroom. The Book of Mormon star, a pal of FOB (friend of Broadway via his producer wife) Kramer, also referred to Clarence Thomas as a bovine. Furthermore, in his previous two columns he used the terms "schtupping," "Fire Crotch" and "prick" and "prickology." This sort of language might have been a fireable offense in days past if it found its way into print. And editors did indeed protest about such a double standard, causing a regular Gad-gate. But Kramer and Callaway, paying no heed to taste and discretion, think his column is cool and hip, not juvenile and offensive. First, daily balls and now kicking standards to the curb. Oh, and supposedly Gad did not like a headline and it was duly changed. These guys don't care how much they are dragging USA TODAY down to garbage heap levels. I am sure advertisers would just love to be associated with a paper that revels in the word prick. Meanwhile, Ghost Factories keeps winning awards -- but that was mainly the product of the previous regime. Sad times.
DeleteGad is funny. A journalist? No. But he is funny. What management should do is loosen the reigns on it's real journalists and they might find themselves with a more viable product. As for the cover photo. Kudos. The company needs to become progressive and show a willingness to tackle controversy. One reason Gannett has become a joke is that local editors play it way too safe.
DeleteWitty it ain't. If this piece is any indication, Gad is nothing but a vulgar ignoramus. Perhaps that's the new target audience.
DeleteAt least they didn't barf a rainbow over the page like every other outlet. For crying out loud, Fond du Lac ran a headline multi-colored.
ReplyDeleteIf the immigration bill is passed, are our front pages going to explode in red and green stripes?
confidential to our editorial friends - don't retread the garbage line that if you're not homosexual, the rulings don't affect you. There's an old lady getting $300k out of the treasury because of what happened yesterday, and the deficit will go up, affecting everyone.
Don't get me wrong, that money is as fairly and rightfully hers as any widow, and I agree with the ruling. When will we stop fucking over single people of any group versus married tax rates? That's another topic.
But saying that the rulings don't affect non-homosexuals is specious and obviously so - please put a little effort into truthfully reporting the consequences.
Pray tell, what are the consequences to others? In what ways is it specious? Please elaborate.
DeleteSpecious - superficially plausible, but actually wrong. In other words, saying/writing/not challenging the idea that "nothing in yesterday's rulings affect non-homosexuals."
DeleteThe easiest example to understand on how the ruling does have a material effect on those who are not homosexual:The gay woman who brought suit because she had to pay estate taxes after her wife's death, now will regain money otherwise deposited in the treasury. Similarly, gay married couples will pay the same lower tax rates as straight married couples.
If tax revenues decrease, all Americans regardless of orientation are affected - either through service cuts, higher taxes or higher deficits.
Your "pray tell" indicates you believe otherwise. Please elaborate.
The o.p. made the point this was the correct decision to make - his quibble is with weak writing that does not serve our readership by assuming a popular meme is actually reflective of the truth.
DeleteMore people become "entitled" to government benefits that those "others" have to pay for at the same time government programs like SSA and Medicare are on shaky ground. Trying to spin it otherwise is about as "specious" as you can get.
DeleteIf those entitlements disagree with you, they should be eliminated for straights and gays. Unless you just want them not to go to gays, in which case call your congressman.
DeleteBut you're totally missing the point of the original poster, who was talking about factual, truthful news coverage.
Here's something I haven't seen much reported:
DeleteThere are only about 7 million gay and lesbian adults in the U.S., based on 3% of all 240 million adults.
Of those, I would be very surprised if even 20% actually got married.
That's just 1.4 million people, or 700,000 couples -- if every state legalized gay marriage. Right now, with California, only 30% of all Americans have access to gay marriage where they live.
Meanwhile, barely 2% of all estates -- gay or straight -- are subject to the tax at the heart of the DOMA case.
Bottom line: the numbers involved, relative to the entire 314 million overall population, are pretty small. So, whatever the financial impact, it won't be huge.
No doubt JIm. But with over a thousand federal regulations reportedly affected by the decision, an editor who would let slip by the assertion that there is no affect on any other than gays isn't doing their jobs.
DeleteConsider it this way - You wouldn't say "Pollution foes breathe easier with new rules" if everyone breathes easier.
"Close enough" might be okay for headlines, but "correct" should be the standard for stories.
What happened to 10% of the population being gay?
DeleteGreat point on this, Jim. I honestly don't know many gay people who want to get married, but would they simply out of principle if they would be paying higher taxes? There are straight couples who refuse to get married in order to avoid the marriage penalty or to avoid messy issues with trusts and estates.
DeleteHere's some really solid reporting on the new law and how it could actually hurt from a financial perspective.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/doma-same_sex_marriage-financial-tax-debt-1282.php
Remind me again why I don't pickup a copy nor read online that junior high school piece of crap.
ReplyDeleteAs a now sometimes reader of USA Today instead of the everyday reader I once was, I was a bit surprised to see the front cover today. I am a live and let live kind of person but I don't want things shoved in my face. Needless to say I didn't buy this issue (along with at least 3 others while I was in the store) and might not buy another for a while. I'm sure there was another way to present this news instead of the over the top choice someone made.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, not a ripple of reaction from the no longer existing readers of this rag.
ReplyDeleteWe missed a great opportunity. We could have sold a logo placement for Altoids or Listermint right next to the two men as they plant one on each other.
ReplyDeleteStraight old dude here. This is a great day for America. I don't have a lot of Gay friends but that deosn't matter. Love is love and people are people. Hell Jane Lynch got married and is now getting divorced. Seems pretty normal to me!Front pages are designed to get the buyer's attention. It sure got mine!
ReplyDeleteWere I circulation manager at USA Today, I'd be furious about this front page. For all the wrong reasons, this will not sell!
ReplyDeleteFunny people go crazy over two guys kissing but pay no attention to the alleged murder two inches above the photo. I'd take two guys kissing any day over a guy who alledgedly shoots his buddy five times in the head. But maybe that is just me
ReplyDeleteGross
ReplyDelete3:28 That 10% figure has long been misunderstood. Exit polls after national U.S. elections typically find a 3-4% response rate to questions about whether voters are gay.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think twice when I saw the cover, but my husband who works down in a Gannett plant says everyone was talking about it...Go figure
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm far more offended by the bad design and constant errors in USAT than I am the content, although even the content has gotten pretty low-brow in recent years. Seems to be a bunch of amateurs putting out this paper these days. Guessing all the layoffs and buyouts are taking a toll, not that a company like Gannett gives a damn about the journalistic integrity of its news products.
ReplyDeleteThe photo's fine. The headline's horrible.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this photo was chosen to celebrate or define this important moment in American history.... it was chosen for pure shock value, plain and simple.....
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised they didn't have one of the guys in a veil.
If anything shoving something sensual in the face of the wider public has the ability to unsettle the large slice of middle America that is happy for gays and lesbians to have the right to marry but just don't want it splashed in their faces... THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE...hiding behind masks of liberalness......that cringe a the thought of a physical act that may be connected to this so called equal love.
But then again a bit of shock and awe and desensitization may be good for them. A a few might even...question....."I wonder what that would feel like?"
The headline, of course, says "Rainbow Rulings."
ReplyDeleteThis leads to a question: Approximately what percentage of readers and viewers do you suppose know rainbow flags, bumper stickers, etc., represent the gay community?
(Bonus points: How many know which movie inspired the symbol?)
Obviously, "The Muppet Movie" was the inspiration for the Rainbow icon. Kermit's voyage (a "hegira" in modern-day parlance) to Hollywood is a metaphor about finding his true feelings for Big Bird, Bert and Ernie.
DeleteAnd Kermit's song, "The Rainbow Connection". A plaintive cry to unleash his inner desires (and they ain't about Miss Piggy). Here's the last line of the song. Decide for yourself.
Is this the sweet sound that called the young sailors.
The voice might be one and the same.
I've heard it too many times to ignore it.
It's something that I'm supposed to be.
Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection.
The lovers, the dreamers and me.
Answer: "The Wizard of Oz."
DeleteOh come on people. I'm not gay, but are we really so bigoted that showing two guys kiss is shoving something in the face of the country? Note that people only say "I don't want something shoved in my face" when they are talking about something that they perceive as negative. Nobody would say a picture of a male groom and female bride kissing would be shoving heterosexuality in our face. It would be a wedding picture.
ReplyDeleteIn America, wedding vows are traditionally sealed with a kiss, so this picture seems to portray the story pretty well. If you are "bothered" by the photo it just illustrates how much room we have to grow. Would you be bothered if it was a black man and white woman? Would you be bothered if one of the people was transgender?
I'm not trying to incite an argument, I'm just saying that we all have prejudices and they can sneak up on us. Saying, "I'm not bigoted but I don't want anything gay shoved in my face," is actually saying, "I am bigoted enough that I'm uncomfortable with this."
A publication aimed at the general population has no business flaunting an immoral lifestyle.
DeletePeople are uncomfortable with a lot of stuff. It doesn't make them bigoted or anything else. It proves they're human. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs...oh, wait. I forgot that only those whose beliefs fit within the politically correct auspices of the day are entitled to their beliefs. Those with other beliefs can be discriminated against, vilified, mocked and treated with contempt and have no recourse.
DeleteI'm a straight, 50 something, white male. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder. The bible days honor the Sabbath and you play golf. The bible says dont eat pork and you buy ribs. The bible says dont mix crops in a field and you have a vegetable garden. Jesus hung out with a group of men at a time when young Jewish men got married in their teens. Please stop playing the morality card. Congrats to my Gay and Lesbian friends. It's a new day.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWould you be bothered if one of the pictured was a child? Would you be bothered if one of the pictured was a horse?
ReplyDeleteAlso not trying to incite an argument, however it is interesting how the line of disgust moves depending upon what is being championed and how the speaker and listener feel. As wordsmiths, we know every word matters - as journalists, we need to be careful to report the news and leave the judgement calls in the opinion columns.
I haven't been here for a while but I noticed the following in reference to a reply I had made:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous6/27/2013 1:53 PM:
"If those entitlements disagree with you, they should be eliminated for straights and gays. Unless you just want them not to go to gays, in which case call your congressman.
"But you're totally missing the point of the original poster, who was talking about factual, truthful news coverage."
Well, first of all I was responding to a question: "Pray tell, what are the consequences to others? In what ways is it specious? Please elaborate."
Secondly, it's not about entitlements disagreeing with me it's about how the more inclusive our society tries to be the more exclusive it becomes by codification. Let me be clear about something--I don't give a fryin' frap who you have sex with because it is none of my business. But when someone becomes entitled to benefits I have to pay for based on who they're having sex with, I feel a little disturbed.
11:30 what on earth are you talking about. What are you having to pay for because a committed couple are recognized as a legal couple? This isn't about welfare, it's about a woman who was in a committed relationship for more than three decades and then OUR IRS made her pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes because the law didnt recognize her as family. YOU didn't have to pay a fine.
DeleteDude, married heterosexuals are getting a tax break right now. They're "entitled to benefits you have to pay for based on who they're having sex with"
ReplyDelete(or as most of us marrieds know, who they're not having sex with)
As was mentioned earlier, if there is no societal benefit to marriage there shouldn't be a financial one - gay or straight, single filers get treated the worst by the tax code.
Would have been a perfect day to have the front page covered with a Chrysler ad.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little surprised no one ever mentioned that this is not just any couple. Katami and Zarrillo were plaintiffs in the California case.
ReplyDelete