Here in the San Francisco Bay area, media reports have covered the one-year anniversary of San Francisco's short-lived experiment in gay marriage. In a typical example, the local public radio station interviewed gay and lesbian couples who dropped everything when the announcement came out and ran to City Hall to get married. They interviewed couples who had been together for years, felt accepted by society for the first time, still felt married despite the court rulings, blah blah blah.
The bias is obvious, isn't it? The media only talks to people who benefited from gay marriage, not those who were personally hurt by gay marriage. Where were the interviews of people driven to divorce, incest, and bestiality by San Francisco's decision? Conservative religious leaders are quite clear that they believe, they know, that man-on-man action is so irresistibly hot that only societal disapproval of gays will save heterosexual families. Why didn't the media give us examples?
Now you, the kind and forgiving reader, will say, "but it takes time for gay marriage corrode society into nothingness, maybe that's why the media didn't balance their interviews." I know you're trying to be open-minded, but remember the irresistible hotness. If the media didn't interview people hurt by gay marriage, it's only because the media didn't try.
P.S. I don't want to end on such a sour note, so I will point out some unbiased media coverage, even if it's not about gay marriage. The Washington Post provides this lead sentence on John Kerry's discussion of military topics:
"Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who lost decisively to President Bush in an election focused on national security, said Tuesday the country would be 'far better off' with his proposals for Iraq and the military."
Now that's the fair lead-in I'd expect from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. You've come a long way, Washington Post!