Let's say you're a reporter doing a story on a politically important group that propagates ideas that are, shall we say, troubling. How do you describe these ideas? As much as we might criticize reporters for mindless "he said/she said" coverage, finding the best alternative isn't always clear cut.
Today, The New York Times has a story about the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group that is getting some increased attention from its sponsorship of Rick Perry's upcoming prayer rally. The AFA is interested in many issues, but they devote much of their attention to gay people, and the hot gay sex they're surely having. Not that I'm implying anything, but the AFA's main spokesperson, Bryan Fischer, seems to spend more time thinking about gay sex than any four or five gay people I know put together. This obsession leads Fischer to some strange places. Here's a passage from the article:
Perhaps most notably, Mr. Fischer trumpets the disputed theory that Adolph Hitler was a homosexual and that the Nazi Party was largely created by "homosexual thugs" — evidence, he says, of the inherent pathologies of homosexuality. Mr. Fischer has also said that no more Muslims should be granted citizenship because their religion says to kill Americans, and that welfare recipients "rut like rabbits" because of what he calls welfare's perverse incentives.
OK, the idea that Hitler was gay and that Nazism was a gay project isn't a "disputed theory." It's insane. But had the reporter written, "Mr. Fischer trumpets the insane theory that Adolph Hitler was a homosexual and that the Nazi Party was largely created by 'homosexual thugs,'" he would have been charged, not entirely unreasonably, with editorializing. So what should he have done?
The approach most reporters take is to find someone else to make the argument, and use that person's quote. That doesn't happen in this case (there's a quote from someone from People for the American Way, but it's about politics), perhaps because most of the article is about the history of the organization. One might argue -- and if I had to guess, I'd bet that this is what the reporter was thinking -- that the AFA's ideas are so repellent that all one needs to do is put them in front of the reader without comment, and that will be enough to demonstrate their vileness. Indeed, if the typical reader of The New York Times reads that Fischer thinks we should have religious tests for citizenship, and that welfare recipients "rut like rabbits," she'll understand how extreme and hateful this group is, and it isn't necessary to use any colorful adjectives to drive the point home.
Maybe. But if that's the approach you choose to take, you have to be extra careful not to give any credit where it isn't due. And calling their theories "disputed" is a cop-out. And lest you think the AFA is just some important fringe group, Perry isn't the only candidate consorting with them -- as the piece mentions, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich have all appeared on Fischer's radio show.
Finally, let me stress, in fairness, that the AFA isn't only concerned about homosexuality but weighs in on a wide variety of critical issues confronting our nation. Looking on their site, I saw a link titled "Bryan Fischer: Shoot these man eaters on sight." I thought it might be a new front in Fischer's campaign against The Gay, but it turns out that what Fischer is actually incensed about is grizzly bear attacks, since the Bible tells us that "a growing danger from wild animals is a sign of a nation in rebellion against God." So they're on top of that.
