Ann Glover, senior editor is now taking calls on this issue.
Questions for her.
What was the news value that caused one out-of-country wedding to be newsworthy enough to be covered in the paper?
A person's "sexual identity" is a very private issue, as is the "sexual identity" of one's family members. Did the St. Pete Times obtain the permission of all family members named before they named them in the story.
Was this printed more for the newsworthiness of the people involved, or more for the shock value of the event and its ramifications.
Since the article announces an event, and implies follow-on conduct, that many Times readers find objectionable, especially when it is exposed to their children, did the Times print any warning notice to readers, such as the notice we see before television airs a morally questionable program.
Did any of the people making the decision to run this story have a personal interest in it, as in are they lesbian or gay? Were readers advised of this? Should readers have been advised of this potential conflict of interest?
Since the Times has demonstrated a willingness to publicize overseas activities that are illegal in Florida, will the Times now take an advertisement for NAMBLA websites, Neo Nazi group websites, or will they be willing to publicize NAMBLA meetings in their "Community Calender" section?
The Times routinely asks for, and occasionally even sues for access to records of meetings that lead to important decisions regarding Floridians. Will the Times release the minutes of meetings that led to the decision to run this announcement?
posted on 01/07/2004 11:37:53 AM PST
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper Network station)
Good questions......hope you asked her!
posted on 01/07/2004 1:51:38 PM PST
(One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
Why "marriage" only between a man and a woman? Or only between a woman and a woman, or a man and a man?
Why not a marriage between a man and his bird? Or a woman and her best friend, and her best friend's cat? And groups of swingers, longing for the right to enjoy spousal company health benefits, should they be forgotten?
The question is not "why," but "why not"?
Remember, people who love 50 casual strangers were probably born that way. Who are we to judge? Inquiring minds and all that...
posted on 01/07/2004 8:43:40 PM PST
GREAT QUESTIONS !!! can you post her answers?
posted on 01/08/2004 1:17:15 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson