Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

A Sign of the NY Times
By Mike Bayham
August 29, 2002

The New York Times is considered the premier newspaper in the United States. Even though it has a municipal title, the Times is very much a national newspaper with far more credibility and deference than their rival in countrywide circulation, the lightweight USA Today (derided as "McPaper" by some friends of mine in New Jersey). The Times is best known for having the moniker, the paper of record.

The Times is almost a status symbol amongst the learned crowd and self styled elitists who forgo their own reasonably priced local paper to scrounge for the marked up New York based daily. Its editorial page has been known to influence policy decisions in both the northeast and the Beltway. In terms of its partisan leanings, the Times could be charitably described as a left of center publication.

For the Times to endorse a liberal candidate over a conservative should not surprise anyone. However, the Times' liberalism recently spilled over from its news section to its society section with the announcement that it would begin running "same sex" wedding announcements. The paper also took it a step further by also heralding another change in their marriage section which will go from having the heading "weddings" to the title of "weddings-celebrations," doing for weddings what "Happy Holidays" did for Christmas.

The paper stated that they felt that "civil unions" (newspeak for gay marriages) were a growing trend and that the paper was obligated to recognize this movement by including these unorthodox partnerships in their newspaper. The Times also laid down the requirement that they will only run announcements for "unions" that were done in Vermont, the only state in the country where people of the same sex can be hitched, and in areas where cities have cohabitation laws.

In defense of their new policy, the Times said that they realize that the issue of "gay marriages" was controversial and that they wished to remain neutral on the matter while allowing voices on both sides to be represented in the paper.

It seems that the train of logic used in explaining their change concerning their marriage section is as faulty as their decision.

First of all, the Times is guilty of gross hyperbole in their assessment of "civil unions" as being a growing trend. So far only Vermont, to quote from the Drew Carey Show, the state that makes New Hampshire nervous, allows a watered down wedding between persons of the same gender. And even then, a civil union in Vermont is not legally recognized in any other state in the Union.

For a national newspaper, it appears that they are using Greenwich Village as their sample instead of the nation as a whole in montioring this supposed trend.

Secondly, since when did the New York Times remain neutral on controversial issues? Does the Times offer truly balanced coverage on the matters of abortion or gun control? Last I checked, the paper is decidedly liberal in both its opinions and its endorsements for candidates seeking public office. Remember it was only two years ago that the Times passed on supporting a genuine New Yorker to back someone for the US Senate, despite having no roots or any long-term connection in the state, just because she was the most liberal candidate.

Finally, how can the New York Times honestly claim that they are being uncharacteristically neutral on this subject when by running the "same sex marriage" stories, they are in fact recognizing the unions as legitimate? If anything, the Times is trying have it both ways by saying that they are impartial on the issue while running the announcements as if they condoned same gender unions.

The Times obviously believes that there is nothing wrong with people of the same gender being married and having that union recognized by the government. It is their right to have such an opinion no matter how disagreeable it is in the eyes of the rest of the country. Their duplicitous excuse is an example how the paper wants to keep an official endorsement of gay marriages in the closet while quietly trying to get society accustomed to civil unions.

I can't say that I am surprised by their change of policy regarding wedding announcements, though I must say that I am disappointed to see how pusillanimous they have been in the manner they are following through with their decision. The mixed signals being sent by the Times is likely an indication that they are aware that this latest great leap leftward will increase their identification with liberalism and might affect their universal revered standing.

Weak-kneed endorsement aside, their de facto support for gay marriages is only the latest sign that the NY Times has continued its devolution toward becoming a hybrid of the Village Voice and the Wall Street Journal, in which the paper of record is increasingly becoming the paper of liberal advocacy.