Minnesota Amendment SF1308 in the News
Marcus Johnson, Molly Harris, Valerie Troutman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate over the legalization of gay marriage has been a topic of hot contention within the past 50 years. Currently, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine and Vermont and most recently New York (July 24th, 2011) as well as the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. The result in New York was unexpected due to its majority Republican Senate. In effect, many supporters of gay marriage believe this marks a change in momentum and that other states will soon follow suit.
Our group has decided to focus on gay marriage in Minnesota. Many headlines in recent news cycles have stated that the issue will be a central focus of the coming 2012 election. Historically, the Minnesota Supreme Court was one of the first to rule against same-sex marriages in Baker v. Nelson (1971). Recently, the Minnesota House and Senate passed SF 1308 (May 2011) which is a bill proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution stating that marriage is the union of one man to one woman. This amendment will be voted on in the 2012 election. For more information on the history of gay marriage in Minnesota visit the Minnesota Legislation Reference Library.
We examined three different media arenas with regards to gay marriage in Minnesota. The first consists of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and the conglomerate of the Associated Press via Google News. These will serve as a base line reading of the issue. The second is media with clear political and social agendas. Specifically the magazine Lavender was examined. The final arena lies within the number one social network, Facebook, where the two largest groups for and against gay marriage in Minnesota were analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STAR TRIBUNE, PIONEER PRESS, GOOGLE NEWS
A general search query of “gay marriage minnesota” and “legalization of gay marriage minnesota” on both websites for the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press yield similar articles. The Oct. 23rd, 2011 article Minn. companies stay on gay marriage sidelines by Patrick Condon of the Associated Press appears in both publications. This article personifies Minnesota Companies and thus serves as an example of Ranke’s history through nations. Additionally, this article cites John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S. and an avid gay rights supporter, who states that his company’s policy is to only take positions on financial and policy issues having to do with business. Taft serves as an example of Hegel’s history of great men. In effect, this article offers a grand narrative; that the natural and normal stance of Minnesota companies should be neutrality with regard to gay marriage. Despite this neutral stance on the issue, it seems that these corporations do not support gay marriage. It is noted several times that these businesses support gay rights through events and donations. However, the article is quick to point out that many feel that explicit corporate support of gay marriage is not in their best interests.
Another article entitled, Bishops begin fight for marriage vote proved very interesting. First, for those who are not aware of the context for the “marriage vote”, it would seem that these Catholic Bishops are in support of gay marriage. However, as noted in the introduction to this project the passage of the amendment actually opposes gay marriage. Furthermore, the stance of the Catholic Church regarding same-sex marriage is never explicitly stated. It is strongly implied through phrases such as, “Church leaders say that the amendment to ban gay marriage is a top issue in 2012 election” that the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. This is an interesting way to present information because it allows to the news publication to remain more or less objective and places the burden of judgment upon the reader.
Surprisingly, there were no recent articles with views from the Minnesota gay community. Arguably, the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press may have deemed it unnecessary to include such an article because of the way in which they reported the opposing sides. Specifically, by removing religious groups and corporations, that the gay community and possible some small number of constituents must clearly oppose the amendment. According to Stuart Hall, this serves as a type casting or classification of the different groups that are involved in the gay marriage issue. The concept of “matter out of place” seems to be in play here because these articles, although not explicitly stated, aim to separate gays from religion and work.
With regard to Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, specifically the filters 1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms and 2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media, it is makes sense why both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press have chosen to report on the gay marriage amendment in the way they do. After refreshing the web pages for the various described articles, one can get a pretty good idea of who supports and advertises with these publications. Notably, the companies Target and General Mills, T-Mobile, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and assorted investment firms all have banner-advertisements. It is important to note that none of these advertisements make an argument for or against gay rights much less gay marriage. However, in light of the style of reporting and the issues both news sources have chosen to report on it is clear that they take an anti-gay marriage stance. According to Herman and Chomksy, it would seem that the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press are relaying the beliefs of their corporate sponsors. It is important to note that the “flak” filter is also in play. Clear-cut views and opinions on gay marriage in Minnesota appear in the Op. Ed. sections but with a disclaimer that these are not the expressed view of either publication. This acts to disarm the populous because they are given an arena to voice their dissent, comment, and raise concern about gay marriage but with no negative repercussions to either publication.
Using the previously mentioned search phrases on Google News gave surprising results. The number one result was Kim Kardashian’s recent divorce. Evidently the 72-day marriage has resulted in numerous opinion and editorial articles stating that the issue of same-sex marriage is about marriage as a civil-right and not who you are “gay, straight, or Kim Kardashian” as one such opinion article stated. It is interesting that the national news cycle has focused their attention on Kim Kardashian as opposed to the actual issue at hand. Then again, from the view of Herman and Chomsky, Kardashian sells.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAVENDER, MINNESOTA FOR MARRIAGE
It was difficult to find articles about the marriage amendment when searching for local and alternative media outlets geared toward the gay community. Lavender Magazine appeared first when googling the key words. Lavender Magazine is a biweekly magazine published in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. It was launched in 1995 has become the largest pride publication in America. On October 20, 2011 an article, Commentary: A Bill for an Act, written by David Hancox, was published in the website’s “affairs section.” The article begins by stating that a bill is being considered for the 2012 Minnesota Legislature will ask members to consider banning interracial marriage. Clearly that was just an example and the author begins to ask questions with that example in mind, How would the public react? How would the religious community react? Hancox then explains that the marriage amendment isn’t about sin and it isn’t about protecting our youth, it’s about discrimination and that is how the GLBTQ culture feels. Later the article quotes republican political figures inter-textually. They both provide quotes in favor of same sex marriage and they wish for the amendment to be revoked. The overall narrative of the article is the GLBTQ community feels that the amendment is discrimination. It’s not a matter of sin, protecting the youth, or maintaing the tradition. It’s about happiness and love. They, as well as the political leaders quoted, feel that it’s so hard to find happiness and why take that away from individuals when it’s finally found.
Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition of leaders, people of other inter-faith and those outside the religious community, that support the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. The website’s goal is to raise awareness about the current threat to marriage and why traditions and regulations should remain the same. Why Marriage Matters was the general article on the webpage. It explains the overall views of members apart of the campaign. They believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Throughout society it has been explained this way for the sole reason of children, “Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children.” The government’s reason of regulating marriage laws will protect the interest of children. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose therefore they can engage in whatever type of relationship they wish to have. Minnesota for Marriage activists feel that they are not discriminating because they are trying to protect their children rather than segregating the GLBTQ community and relationships within their culture. They also state that only a man and woman can produce a child therefore they deserve the right to marriage. The overall narrative and goal of Minnesota for Marriage is to maintain marriage as a union between a man and women to protect the interests of children and society as a whole.
Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model was within Lavender and Minnesota for Marriage’s websites. The ownership of the medium, Lavender Magazine, is Lavender Media. Within Lavender Magazine, the website is loaded with advertisements specifically for the GLBTQ culture. “Home Owners Insurance,” more commonly known as Farmers Agent Insurance, is advertised on the side as well as “Lavender Thursdays,” at Marriott Minneapolis Center. The sourcing of articles are in commonly known places and quotes from well established political figures are used. The article consistently puts down activists for the amendment. The “flak” for the opposing side is obvious and clear for example, “We should not just simply ignore the absurdity of the kind of ridiculousness that is being presented as fact by those who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. There needs to be a demand for a rejection of the propagation of this kind of myth and misinformation. No other minority community would sit by idly and accept this kind of ludicrousness” (Hancox). Minnesota for Marriage also exemplifies the propaganda model. The website’s ownership is large organizations and religious communities against same sex marriage. There are no advertisements on the sides, only ways to get involved and websites that promote Minnesota for Marriage’s ideals. Within the website, the campaign stays true to their values and continually presents the GLBTQ culture in a negative manner. Flak is always present and they blame the GLBTQ community for the threat to marriage. Minnesota for Marriage also provides the “fear” factor; if marriage becomes open to all, society will change for the bad. Both articles have been manufactured for society. More specifically each article has been produced to put down the other body and promote their goals regarding the upcoming 2012 election.
A central narrative and theme within both is how the change will affect the children of society. Lavender makes it clear that the decision to legalize same sex marriage has nothing to do with youth and it’s not about that at all. Instead of harming youth it will benefit them. It will teach children acceptance of people who are different. Contrary to that belief, Minnesota for Marriage believes that allowing same sex marriage will hurt the youth. How will parents explain marriage and the creation of babies if marriage isn’t solely for a man and a women? Altering the laws will change societal ideals and cause destruction in the future is the belief of Minnesota for Marriage. It’s significant to focus on the children because ultimately the decision will effect upcoming youth the most.
When searching for local and alternative media created specifically for each side, groups for the amendment had more information, propaganda, and publicity. The opinion and information was precise, organized, and professional within Minnesota for Marriage. As for Lavender and other GLTBQ media outlets it was difficult to find articles about the upcoming election. Lavender, as a whole, focuses more on arts, culture, and entertainment. Feature stories included “The Lynx: Photo Galleries,” and “On the Record: Feist, Tori Amos, and Dessa.” After searching within the website, articles about the amendment were found in the affairs section. In specific articles the stance wasn’t initially stated and was hidden amongst background information. Maybe the GLTBQ community views their stance as ideological and obvious? Still, it’s important to state the objective visibly for an outsider’s sake. The narrative of marriage is clearly defined for Minnesota for Marriage. Lavender’s, as well as others apart of the GLBTQ community, hope to change traditionalist’s ideologies over time. Each group achieves their goal of extending their opinions out to their own community, but what will determine the outcome of this amendment is which group advocates to the other side first and eventually sways and changes their opinion’s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACEBOOK EVENTS
For many young adults, Facebook has become a major source for information and an outlet for opinions to be shared. It is an easily accessible place where our generation is able to document history in the making. Anyone is able to post statuses, images, and videos or create an event, page, or group that argues his or her point of view. In this way, Facebook affords its users a certain level of agency within the constraints of profile and posting rules. Moreover, it is this agency that allows users to become authors or historians. The creator of an event, group, or profile also has the ability to delete posts and comments that are put on the event. Effectively, this empowers the creator with sole control of censorship. In light of Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, it is clear that this power is much like that of a state bureaucracy or monopoly. The expression of the creator’s views are ensured and in effect the content is biased.
In regards to the upcoming vote on the Minnesota amendment to define gay marriage, many Facebook entities have been created. Most notably, two November, 6th 2012 events, “I WILL vote NO on the marriage amendment!” (Vote No) and “Vote ‘YES’ to Protect Marriage in MN” (Vote Yes) are connected to the most people, and are the two events one comes across first when searching this topic on Facebook.
The Vote Yes event has 315 people attending, with a total of about 1,310 people that have been attached to this event (people that have been notified about the event and are in the categories “attending”, “maybe attending”, “not attending” and “awaiting reply”) . The information section is written in a very straight forward, organized and fact-based way. Even stating “knowledge is the most important thing about voting”, yet it is only providing information that pertains to their stance on the issue, and gives many religious websites as references. The second paragraph states “If this bill is not passed, it won’t legalize gay marriage, but may leave the door open for interpretation. This bill is an important event in protecting the sanctity of marriage.” Just the phrase “leave the door open for interpretation” reinforces one of the common arguments that if same-sex marriage is legalized that it will cause “all sorts of ridiculous things” as explained in this image that was posted recently on both events. The text “open the door” and also “sanctity of marriage” are key phrases that are repeated numerous times throughout posts and comments.
The Vote No event has 89,440 people attending, with over 210,000 people connected to it, with that number increasing by the hour. The shear numbers associated with the Vote No event alone brings an argument. Within the Facebook community, there is an overwhelming amount of support for voting against the marriage amendment. Though one should not make his or her voting decision based off of others, these numbers are not reflective of the Minnesota public. The information section of it is written very candidly. The creator talks about why he created the event and also reminds future contributors to the event to “try to keep [comments] civil”. It only states at the very end a few important details about the amendment and if it passing it is only “furthering the already discriminator act of MN law”.
Though they have clear differences in point of view, the two events do have some striking similarities. Both have a clear outline of MN as their event photo, Vote No with the signature rainbow flag and Vote Yes with the male and female outlines holding hands. Vote Yes’s photo emphasizes the “One Man, One Woman” key phrase while Vote No’s photo reads “For Better, For Worse, For All”, utilizing common marriage vow text. Additionally, a lot of the same people are posting on the walls of these two events, and even posting the same article or image on both events. It is clear that a few individuals are contributing to a majority of the content through posts and comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When searching for information and articles, celebrities and other pop culture items appeared more often than the actual amendment and election in Minnesota. This may be due to the fact that the vote is a full year away, but it is important to note that those in favor of the amendment are the most prevalent in the media today. It was difficult to find an article about the Minnesota amendment in Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis publication. With a topic that directly affects the state, one would think that there would be some information available with aims at educating and preparing people for the upcoming vote. In contrast there was a plethora of articles and postings about protecting the sanctity of marriage and various campaigns (including one with a gift card as an incentive) to gain support of the amendment.
A recent poll found that a majority of Minnesotans oppose the amendment to ban gay marriage. The specific numbers were 55% opposed and 39% in favor. This provides a sharp contrast to our group findings. The articles and opinions expressed in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press indicate that Minnesotans, across religious and corporate fronts, are opposed to gay marriage. Additionally, there was a large disparity in the number of people involved in the two Facebook groups examined (over 89,000 in support of the gay marriage ban versus 315 against it). Taking into consideration the analysis of the articles in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press with respect to Stuart Hall as well as the Herman-Chomsky application of censorship to Facebook, we are given the impression that there is overwhelming support for the ban on gay marriage in Minnesota. We can safely label these groups as the leading classes whose aim is to guide its audience to an anti-gay marriage stance. The dominance of this view in the media we examined can be extended to a form of media control and thus admits itself to the creation (or in this case literally writing) of history. The matter-of-fact reporting on the issue and the social media reinforcement are dangerous because we, as the audience, are offered little or no opposing view from these same sources.
The examination of Lavender seemed surprising at first.The magazine seems to focus primarily on arts and culture events as well as health and wellness within the Minnesota’s gay community. The issue of finding explicit support for gay marriage and/or expressed opposition to the amendment was initially alarming however; searches for “gay marriage” and “legalization of gay marriage” in the national news cycle yielded results that similarly kept to the arena of popular culture. As previously mentioned, the Kim Kardashian divorce was among the top search results. Other notables include Conan O’Brien’s officiating of a gay wedding on his show and Elton John’s support of New York Governer Andrew Cuomo for his support and victory in the legalization of gay marriage in New York.
The linked article regarding Elton John and Gov. Cuomo is representative of other related articles. There is a short blurb about John’s support and praise of Cuomo some donation statistics but the focus seems to be on a benefit where the two met. Celebrities are named, pictures of fashionable people appear, but the issue of gay marriage is not present. The emphasis on popular culture works to distract readers from the actual issue and to a certain extent romanticizes the gay community. The format and reporting found in Lavender corroborates this notion as well. As noted, the sponsorship and advertising of Lavender may have a greater influence on its content despite the magazines clear affiliation with the gay community. Taking into consideration the ideas of classification and grand narrative, it would seem that the gay community makes sense if it exists and is well defined within the spectrum of arts and culture rather than in the political spectrum.
When approached with a big decision to make, hopefully one searches many media outlets and information to build his or her opinion. Unfortunately if one only source is referenced, a partial truth could be perceived as the overall story. As seen by our analysis, sources of information can be edited and filtered to promote a specific agenda, whether it is obvious or not.
Marcus Johnson, Molly Harris, Valerie Troutman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate over the legalization of gay marriage has been a topic of hot contention within the past 50 years. Currently, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine and Vermont and most recently New York (July 24th, 2011) as well as the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. The result in New York was unexpected due to its majority Republican Senate. In effect, many supporters of gay marriage believe this marks a change in momentum and that other states will soon follow suit.
Our group has decided to focus on gay marriage in Minnesota. Many headlines in recent news cycles have stated that the issue will be a central focus of the coming 2012 election. Historically, the Minnesota Supreme Court was one of the first to rule against same-sex marriages in Baker v. Nelson (1971). Recently, the Minnesota House and Senate passed SF 1308 (May 2011) which is a bill proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution stating that marriage is the union of one man to one woman. This amendment will be voted on in the 2012 election. For more information on the history of gay marriage in Minnesota visit the Minnesota Legislation Reference Library.
We examined three different media arenas with regards to gay marriage in Minnesota. The first consists of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and the conglomerate of the Associated Press via Google News. These will serve as a base line reading of the issue. The second is media with clear political and social agendas. Specifically the magazine Lavender was examined. The final arena lies within the number one social network, Facebook, where the two largest groups for and against gay marriage in Minnesota were analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STAR TRIBUNE, PIONEER PRESS, GOOGLE NEWS
A general search query of “gay marriage minnesota” and “legalization of gay marriage minnesota” on both websites for the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press yield similar articles. The Oct. 23rd, 2011 article Minn. companies stay on gay marriage sidelines by Patrick Condon of the Associated Press appears in both publications. This article personifies Minnesota Companies and thus serves as an example of Ranke’s history through nations. Additionally, this article cites John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S. and an avid gay rights supporter, who states that his company’s policy is to only take positions on financial and policy issues having to do with business. Taft serves as an example of Hegel’s history of great men. In effect, this article offers a grand narrative; that the natural and normal stance of Minnesota companies should be neutrality with regard to gay marriage. Despite this neutral stance on the issue, it seems that these corporations do not support gay marriage. It is noted several times that these businesses support gay rights through events and donations. However, the article is quick to point out that many feel that explicit corporate support of gay marriage is not in their best interests.
Another article entitled, Bishops begin fight for marriage vote proved very interesting. First, for those who are not aware of the context for the “marriage vote”, it would seem that these Catholic Bishops are in support of gay marriage. However, as noted in the introduction to this project the passage of the amendment actually opposes gay marriage. Furthermore, the stance of the Catholic Church regarding same-sex marriage is never explicitly stated. It is strongly implied through phrases such as, “Church leaders say that the amendment to ban gay marriage is a top issue in 2012 election” that the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. This is an interesting way to present information because it allows to the news publication to remain more or less objective and places the burden of judgment upon the reader.
Surprisingly, there were no recent articles with views from the Minnesota gay community. Arguably, the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press may have deemed it unnecessary to include such an article because of the way in which they reported the opposing sides. Specifically, by removing religious groups and corporations, that the gay community and possible some small number of constituents must clearly oppose the amendment. According to Stuart Hall, this serves as a type casting or classification of the different groups that are involved in the gay marriage issue. The concept of “matter out of place” seems to be in play here because these articles, although not explicitly stated, aim to separate gays from religion and work.
With regard to Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, specifically the filters 1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms and 2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media, it is makes sense why both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press have chosen to report on the gay marriage amendment in the way they do. After refreshing the web pages for the various described articles, one can get a pretty good idea of who supports and advertises with these publications. Notably, the companies Target and General Mills, T-Mobile, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and assorted investment firms all have banner-advertisements. It is important to note that none of these advertisements make an argument for or against gay rights much less gay marriage. However, in light of the style of reporting and the issues both news sources have chosen to report on it is clear that they take an anti-gay marriage stance. According to Herman and Chomksy, it would seem that the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press are relaying the beliefs of their corporate sponsors. It is important to note that the “flak” filter is also in play. Clear-cut views and opinions on gay marriage in Minnesota appear in the Op. Ed. sections but with a disclaimer that these are not the expressed view of either publication. This acts to disarm the populous because they are given an arena to voice their dissent, comment, and raise concern about gay marriage but with no negative repercussions to either publication.
Using the previously mentioned search phrases on Google News gave surprising results. The number one result was Kim Kardashian’s recent divorce. Evidently the 72-day marriage has resulted in numerous opinion and editorial articles stating that the issue of same-sex marriage is about marriage as a civil-right and not who you are “gay, straight, or Kim Kardashian” as one such opinion article stated. It is interesting that the national news cycle has focused their attention on Kim Kardashian as opposed to the actual issue at hand. Then again, from the view of Herman and Chomsky, Kardashian sells.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAVENDER, MINNESOTA FOR MARRIAGE
It was difficult to find articles about the marriage amendment when searching for local and alternative media outlets geared toward the gay community. Lavender Magazine appeared first when googling the key words. Lavender Magazine is a biweekly magazine published in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. It was launched in 1995 has become the largest pride publication in America. On October 20, 2011 an article, Commentary: A Bill for an Act, written by David Hancox, was published in the website’s “affairs section.” The article begins by stating that a bill is being considered for the 2012 Minnesota Legislature will ask members to consider banning interracial marriage. Clearly that was just an example and the author begins to ask questions with that example in mind, How would the public react? How would the religious community react? Hancox then explains that the marriage amendment isn’t about sin and it isn’t about protecting our youth, it’s about discrimination and that is how the GLBTQ culture feels. Later the article quotes republican political figures inter-textually. They both provide quotes in favor of same sex marriage and they wish for the amendment to be revoked. The overall narrative of the article is the GLBTQ community feels that the amendment is discrimination. It’s not a matter of sin, protecting the youth, or maintaing the tradition. It’s about happiness and love. They, as well as the political leaders quoted, feel that it’s so hard to find happiness and why take that away from individuals when it’s finally found.
Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition of leaders, people of other inter-faith and those outside the religious community, that support the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. The website’s goal is to raise awareness about the current threat to marriage and why traditions and regulations should remain the same. Why Marriage Matters was the general article on the webpage. It explains the overall views of members apart of the campaign. They believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Throughout society it has been explained this way for the sole reason of children, “Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children.” The government’s reason of regulating marriage laws will protect the interest of children. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose therefore they can engage in whatever type of relationship they wish to have. Minnesota for Marriage activists feel that they are not discriminating because they are trying to protect their children rather than segregating the GLBTQ community and relationships within their culture. They also state that only a man and woman can produce a child therefore they deserve the right to marriage. The overall narrative and goal of Minnesota for Marriage is to maintain marriage as a union between a man and women to protect the interests of children and society as a whole.
Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model was within Lavender and Minnesota for Marriage’s websites. The ownership of the medium, Lavender Magazine, is Lavender Media. Within Lavender Magazine, the website is loaded with advertisements specifically for the GLBTQ culture. “Home Owners Insurance,” more commonly known as Farmers Agent Insurance, is advertised on the side as well as “Lavender Thursdays,” at Marriott Minneapolis Center. The sourcing of articles are in commonly known places and quotes from well established political figures are used. The article consistently puts down activists for the amendment. The “flak” for the opposing side is obvious and clear for example, “We should not just simply ignore the absurdity of the kind of ridiculousness that is being presented as fact by those who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota. There needs to be a demand for a rejection of the propagation of this kind of myth and misinformation. No other minority community would sit by idly and accept this kind of ludicrousness” (Hancox). Minnesota for Marriage also exemplifies the propaganda model. The website’s ownership is large organizations and religious communities against same sex marriage. There are no advertisements on the sides, only ways to get involved and websites that promote Minnesota for Marriage’s ideals. Within the website, the campaign stays true to their values and continually presents the GLBTQ culture in a negative manner. Flak is always present and they blame the GLBTQ community for the threat to marriage. Minnesota for Marriage also provides the “fear” factor; if marriage becomes open to all, society will change for the bad. Both articles have been manufactured for society. More specifically each article has been produced to put down the other body and promote their goals regarding the upcoming 2012 election.
A central narrative and theme within both is how the change will affect the children of society. Lavender makes it clear that the decision to legalize same sex marriage has nothing to do with youth and it’s not about that at all. Instead of harming youth it will benefit them. It will teach children acceptance of people who are different. Contrary to that belief, Minnesota for Marriage believes that allowing same sex marriage will hurt the youth. How will parents explain marriage and the creation of babies if marriage isn’t solely for a man and a women? Altering the laws will change societal ideals and cause destruction in the future is the belief of Minnesota for Marriage. It’s significant to focus on the children because ultimately the decision will effect upcoming youth the most.
When searching for local and alternative media created specifically for each side, groups for the amendment had more information, propaganda, and publicity. The opinion and information was precise, organized, and professional within Minnesota for Marriage. As for Lavender and other GLTBQ media outlets it was difficult to find articles about the upcoming election. Lavender, as a whole, focuses more on arts, culture, and entertainment. Feature stories included “The Lynx: Photo Galleries,” and “On the Record: Feist, Tori Amos, and Dessa.” After searching within the website, articles about the amendment were found in the affairs section. In specific articles the stance wasn’t initially stated and was hidden amongst background information. Maybe the GLTBQ community views their stance as ideological and obvious? Still, it’s important to state the objective visibly for an outsider’s sake. The narrative of marriage is clearly defined for Minnesota for Marriage. Lavender’s, as well as others apart of the GLBTQ community, hope to change traditionalist’s ideologies over time. Each group achieves their goal of extending their opinions out to their own community, but what will determine the outcome of this amendment is which group advocates to the other side first and eventually sways and changes their opinion’s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACEBOOK EVENTS
For many young adults, Facebook has become a major source for information and an outlet for opinions to be shared. It is an easily accessible place where our generation is able to document history in the making. Anyone is able to post statuses, images, and videos or create an event, page, or group that argues his or her point of view. In this way, Facebook affords its users a certain level of agency within the constraints of profile and posting rules. Moreover, it is this agency that allows users to become authors or historians. The creator of an event, group, or profile also has the ability to delete posts and comments that are put on the event. Effectively, this empowers the creator with sole control of censorship. In light of Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, it is clear that this power is much like that of a state bureaucracy or monopoly. The expression of the creator’s views are ensured and in effect the content is biased.
In regards to the upcoming vote on the Minnesota amendment to define gay marriage, many Facebook entities have been created. Most notably, two November, 6th 2012 events, “I WILL vote NO on the marriage amendment!” (Vote No) and “Vote ‘YES’ to Protect Marriage in MN” (Vote Yes) are connected to the most people, and are the two events one comes across first when searching this topic on Facebook.
The Vote Yes event has 315 people attending, with a total of about 1,310 people that have been attached to this event (people that have been notified about the event and are in the categories “attending”, “maybe attending”, “not attending” and “awaiting reply”) . The information section is written in a very straight forward, organized and fact-based way. Even stating “knowledge is the most important thing about voting”, yet it is only providing information that pertains to their stance on the issue, and gives many religious websites as references. The second paragraph states “If this bill is not passed, it won’t legalize gay marriage, but may leave the door open for interpretation. This bill is an important event in protecting the sanctity of marriage.” Just the phrase “leave the door open for interpretation” reinforces one of the common arguments that if same-sex marriage is legalized that it will cause “all sorts of ridiculous things” as explained in this image that was posted recently on both events. The text “open the door” and also “sanctity of marriage” are key phrases that are repeated numerous times throughout posts and comments.
The Vote No event has 89,440 people attending, with over 210,000 people connected to it, with that number increasing by the hour. The shear numbers associated with the Vote No event alone brings an argument. Within the Facebook community, there is an overwhelming amount of support for voting against the marriage amendment. Though one should not make his or her voting decision based off of others, these numbers are not reflective of the Minnesota public. The information section of it is written very candidly. The creator talks about why he created the event and also reminds future contributors to the event to “try to keep [comments] civil”. It only states at the very end a few important details about the amendment and if it passing it is only “furthering the already discriminator act of MN law”.
Though they have clear differences in point of view, the two events do have some striking similarities. Both have a clear outline of MN as their event photo, Vote No with the signature rainbow flag and Vote Yes with the male and female outlines holding hands. Vote Yes’s photo emphasizes the “One Man, One Woman” key phrase while Vote No’s photo reads “For Better, For Worse, For All”, utilizing common marriage vow text. Additionally, a lot of the same people are posting on the walls of these two events, and even posting the same article or image on both events. It is clear that a few individuals are contributing to a majority of the content through posts and comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When searching for information and articles, celebrities and other pop culture items appeared more often than the actual amendment and election in Minnesota. This may be due to the fact that the vote is a full year away, but it is important to note that those in favor of the amendment are the most prevalent in the media today. It was difficult to find an article about the Minnesota amendment in Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis publication. With a topic that directly affects the state, one would think that there would be some information available with aims at educating and preparing people for the upcoming vote. In contrast there was a plethora of articles and postings about protecting the sanctity of marriage and various campaigns (including one with a gift card as an incentive) to gain support of the amendment.
A recent poll found that a majority of Minnesotans oppose the amendment to ban gay marriage. The specific numbers were 55% opposed and 39% in favor. This provides a sharp contrast to our group findings. The articles and opinions expressed in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press indicate that Minnesotans, across religious and corporate fronts, are opposed to gay marriage. Additionally, there was a large disparity in the number of people involved in the two Facebook groups examined (over 89,000 in support of the gay marriage ban versus 315 against it). Taking into consideration the analysis of the articles in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press with respect to Stuart Hall as well as the Herman-Chomsky application of censorship to Facebook, we are given the impression that there is overwhelming support for the ban on gay marriage in Minnesota. We can safely label these groups as the leading classes whose aim is to guide its audience to an anti-gay marriage stance. The dominance of this view in the media we examined can be extended to a form of media control and thus admits itself to the creation (or in this case literally writing) of history. The matter-of-fact reporting on the issue and the social media reinforcement are dangerous because we, as the audience, are offered little or no opposing view from these same sources.
The examination of Lavender seemed surprising at first.The magazine seems to focus primarily on arts and culture events as well as health and wellness within the Minnesota’s gay community. The issue of finding explicit support for gay marriage and/or expressed opposition to the amendment was initially alarming however; searches for “gay marriage” and “legalization of gay marriage” in the national news cycle yielded results that similarly kept to the arena of popular culture. As previously mentioned, the Kim Kardashian divorce was among the top search results. Other notables include Conan O’Brien’s officiating of a gay wedding on his show and Elton John’s support of New York Governer Andrew Cuomo for his support and victory in the legalization of gay marriage in New York.
The linked article regarding Elton John and Gov. Cuomo is representative of other related articles. There is a short blurb about John’s support and praise of Cuomo some donation statistics but the focus seems to be on a benefit where the two met. Celebrities are named, pictures of fashionable people appear, but the issue of gay marriage is not present. The emphasis on popular culture works to distract readers from the actual issue and to a certain extent romanticizes the gay community. The format and reporting found in Lavender corroborates this notion as well. As noted, the sponsorship and advertising of Lavender may have a greater influence on its content despite the magazines clear affiliation with the gay community. Taking into consideration the ideas of classification and grand narrative, it would seem that the gay community makes sense if it exists and is well defined within the spectrum of arts and culture rather than in the political spectrum.
When approached with a big decision to make, hopefully one searches many media outlets and information to build his or her opinion. Unfortunately if one only source is referenced, a partial truth could be perceived as the overall story. As seen by our analysis, sources of information can be edited and filtered to promote a specific agenda, whether it is obvious or not.
I absolutely adore the part about how "Kim Kardashian sells." This is the same argument I made in class when we were on the issue of whether or not the New York Times was racist or not. I have found this issue of trying to sell certain things an unlimited amount of time. For example organizations trying to raise money for undeveloped African countries all use the same strategies of showing African people looking like savages. The fact that African people get upset is totally understandable, but at the same time that is the demographic that the funds should be going to, the worst of the worst. Also I believe that if they published a picture of a Kenyan family at a picnic having a gay ol' time the audience would see no reason on why they need help with funds. I apologize if that sounds insensitive but looking through a business lens it is simply good advertising.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole Kim Kardashian thing is crazy! The information on her "marriage" if you can even call it that is irrelevant to anything relating to gay marriage! The sheer fact that you guys had to dig through all the pop culture to get to some real facts and information on the subject is a mockery to the news. However, the information you did manage to find was very interesting, particularly the facebook groups.
ReplyDeletewhat intrigued me was the difference in number of attendees between the two groups. 81 thousand to 315 is not even a competition. Then again, all the old people who will most likely vote traditionally for it probably arent on facebook...Overall I really enjoyed all of your research!
A recent poll about the marriage amendment was just posted TODAY on the Star Tribune - it even made it to the front page. The poll taken November 2-3 revealed that 48% favor and 43% oppose the amendment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/133406223.html