FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 18, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"An important new study proves that the news media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of same-sex 'marriage,' leaving viewers to wonder if they are trying to shape the news rather than cover it." — Brian Brown, NOM president —
Washington, D.C. — Citing an independent news analysis, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today criticized the national news media for their overwhelming bias in favor of same-sex 'marriage.' According to the study released by The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, stories with more statements supporting same-sex 'marriage' outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.
"Those of us on the front lines of defending true marriage have experienced first-hand the news media's bias in favor of redefining marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "But this important new study proves that the news media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of same-sex 'marriage,' leaving viewers to wonder if they are trying to shape the news rather than cover it."
The Pew Center journalism research project studied nearly 500 news stories published from March 18 through May 12 and found that nearly half (47%) primarily focused on support for same-sex 'marriage,' while only 9% primarily focused on opposition. In contrast to the news media treatment of the issue, the Pew Center study found that comments by the public via Twitter were evenly split (31% in favor; 28% opposed), reflecting the close division of the country on whether marriage should be redefined to accommodate same-sex couples.
"This is a fascinating study that reveals the underlying bias of the media in support of redefining marriage," Brown said. "Yet despite that, the public isn't buying it at least based on reported Twitter comments. We call on editors, producers and reporters to carefully study their own coverage in light of this proven bias, and ensure that the voices of NOM and other supporters of marriage are fairly and adequately reflected in their coverage. This is especially important in covering the upcoming Supreme Court rulings expected by the end of the month, and their aftermath."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.
The Baptist Press 
Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider 
"Mormon leaders unveiled a new website Thursday encouraging church members to be more compassionate in discussions about homosexuality.
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the petition for certiorari filed on Wednesday by defenders of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. Cormac covered the petition, which comes directly from the federal district court, in yesterday’s round-up. JURIST also has additional coverage of the petition. At Buzzfeed, Chris Geidner outlines several reasons why the petitioners might want to bypass the Ninth Circuit, noting that in this case, “people supporting maintaining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman won,” whereas in all ten of the other pending petitions, same-sex marriage supporters prevailed. Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter explains why he thinks the Court will deny the Nevada petition, including because “the fact that the Nevada case presents the ‘fundamental issue’ of whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry actually cuts against immediate review,” as the Court “usually likes to move in a more minimalist fashion, reserving the largest issues for resolution after more development in the lower courts.”
