The folks over at MarriageMovement.org are angry at the New York Times, devoting post after post to criticizing its coverage. Why? Because the Times article on the Bush administration’s Marriage Initiative included this passage:
“This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base,” a presidential adviser said.
Elizabeth Marquardt speculates that maybe no administration officials actually said that – maybe the Times just made the whole thing up (although Elizabeth admits the attribution is “believable.”) Tom Sylvester declares that it was probably taken out of context by the Times.
Neither of them seem to find it remarkable to accuse the Times of fictionalizing news stories without the slightest bit of evidence; call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s nice to present some evidence that someone has actually lied when accusing them of lying.
Here’s my theory: probably administration officials said what the Times claimed they said. And the Times reported it because it is newsworthy, and to not include the administration quotes would have been irresponsible for any news organization. And other papers picked up on the story because it is newsworthy.
I know that’s not as much fun as made-up conspiracies (the Times may have made up the quotes! No, wait, they took them out of context!), but in this case the duller story is probably the more truthful.
As for the marriage initiative itself, the Bush administration is making it sound like a very humble proposal indeed.
“We know this is a sensitive area,” Dr. Horn said. “We don’t want to come in with a heavy hand. All services will be voluntary. We want to help couples, especially low-income couples, manage conflict in healthy ways. We know how to teach problem-solving, negotiation and listening skills. This initiative will not force anyone to get or stay married. The last thing we’d want is to increase the rate of domestic violence against women.”
Dr. Horn (who, in a previous stage of his career, was an extremist “father’s rights” advocate) gives the impression that this initiative merely provides to poor folks the marriage counseling that wealthier folks have been able to afford all along. If that’s what it does, then I have no problem with the marriage initiative. I’m not convinced it will do much good, but maybe I’m wrong about that, and it won’t hurt to try. If the result is that more people who would mutually like to stay married are able to keep their marriages intact, then hooray.
On the other hand, I don’t find either Mr. Horn or the Bush administration trustworthy; feminist and liberal groups will obviously have to monitor how the program is actually implemented to see if it’s as harmless as Horn claims.
Of course, I also suspect that the money could be spent in more effective ways. From a different Times article:
“In order to improve the outcomes for families that do not fit the ‘ideal’ type,” Ms. Brett wrote in a paper published last January, “we can seek to change and broaden the systems to support more types of families, rather than seeking to change the families themselves.”
Still, most researchers concede that low-income people are no less interested in healthy, loving marriages than anyone else. As long as the marriage initiative is part of a constellation of programs that address other aspects of poverty, like jobs, education and proper health care, Professor Lichter said, “what’s wrong with the government helping them reach those aspirations?”
If I were president, Ms. Brett’s approach would be emphasized and funded. But face it: that kind of feminist reform, dedicated to helping all women, not just women who want to get married, will not happen under this president and this congress. In the meanwhile, since really good policies are unavailable, let’s take what we can get..
Oftentimes, programs like they are suggesting are already available, in the ways they want them available, to poor families, anyway. Our community offers free counseling, marriage counseling, family counseling, mediation services, you name it. (Ours happen to be within walking distance of the courthouse.)
What they should be doing is bolstering the finances of the existing programs and doling out money for such programs in communities that don’t have them. None of these services (that I know of) force families to do anything against their wills, but give the emotional scaffolding needed to maintain a satisfactory level of functionality.
Oh, but I love being a moderate…
And marriagemovement.org is a frequent stop in my bookmarks.
Why? Because:
[1] The bailiwick of the site addresses the preservation of stable nuclear families;
[2] The contributors to the site make no bones about their political sympathies;
[3] Unlike a lot of right-leaning sites, marriagemovement.org makes a sincere effort to address topics (such as LGBT matrimonial rights, open relationships, applied theology, and teen sexuality) that a lot of its brethren dismiss with vitriol… and with some degree of intellectual honesty, certainly more than you’d find on NRO, TCS, or comparably uber-liberal sites.
As a child of divorce and a Child of the Eighties, I find their overall approach refreshing. They may belong to a cheering section I’m predisposed to dislike, but they’re honest about it, and that’s quite keen.
Bear in mind meanwhile that the Jayson Blair business, and Paul Krugman’s prevarication about the bias of his columns, have a lot of conservatives’ proverbial panties in a knot. Nor do the wire services’ refusal to call a terrorist a terrorist have these people terribly impressed with the current state of ethics in mainstream journalism. (I doubt the blatant spinning of conservative outlets helps, either.)
Or, just because you trust the Times, Amp, doesn’t mean that everyone else will.
Just sayin’.
“Neither of them seem to find it remarkable to accuse the Times of fictionalizing news stories without the slightest bit of evidence.”
Pingback: flaschenpost