Dan Martin Kevin O'Neil Joyce Chilton
(The three Springfield Commissioners who voted against the non-discrimation ordinance; photos courtesy of the City of Springfield)
This week I
experienced one of the most evasive yet persistent showing of cowardice
imaginable—but, as a journalist, I’m sure it won’t be my last.
This week I
wrote a Torch story on the Supreme
Court’s declination last Monday to hear same-sex marriage appeals. The Court’s
decision effectively legalized same sex marriage in 11 new states, pushing the
total to 30. You can read a more detailed analysis here.
The story I
wrote was essentially a localization of the Court’s decision; that is, an
exploration of the decision’s potential impact on Ohio’s same sex marriage ban,
as well as local, non-marriage issues.
Two years ago,
the Springfield commission voted against an ordinance, 3-2, that would have
added protective language to the city’s human rights codes for people in the
LGBT community, prohibiting employers or property owners from discriminating
against—or even firing or evicting—people based on their sexual orientation or
identification.
Obviously, this
issue was raised by the local LGBT activists I interviewed, and they certainly
had strong opinions on it. Thus, as journalistic ethics hold, I had to get both
sided of the story; that is, comments from the commissioners who voted against
the ordinance.
Last Monday
night, I sent emails to each member requesting to speak with them in person;
or, if that was too inconvenient, some comments via phone or email.
By Tuesday at
3:00 p.m., I had yet to hear back. Hence, I re-sent each email, and called each
of the phone numbers listed on their website. I left them each a voice mail.
Over the course
of the week, I found myself calling and emailing every-day, but to no-avail. It
seems these three commissioners weren’t interested in explaining votes, let
alone a vote that a lot of Wittenberg students would be furious about.
What is so
frustrating about this process is that there is an argument to be made against
the non-discrimination ordinance. It is not a compelling argument, but it’s a
fucking argument, and an argument one has to be able to articulate in order to
actualize such bigotry in a powerful, meaningful way: through public policy.
What is just as
important is that it is an absolute necessity that this argument be revealed to
the public, Wittenberg students included. This is a civil rights issue, and the
liberation of the LGBT people is at least somewhat contingent on—just as the success of same sex marriage was—dismantling bigoted arguments against protecting
rights. And for something to be dismantled, it typically needs to be visible.
Indeed, I can’t
claim that I’m objective on these issues; in fact, I actually interned for one
of the city commissioner who voted in favor of the ordinance. You can find her
picture on one of the Equality Springfield billboards around the city that is
raising awareness about this issue; what a courageous woman she is.
(Karen Duncan, one of
the commissioners who voted in favor of the ordinance, on Equality
Springfield's billboard; Courtesy of Equality Springfield)
Nevertheless, I will was more than willing to
objectively and fairly broadcast their argument, their stance, their anything.
Once again, as
journalistic ethics hold, the last graph news article will read:
“The three
Springfield commissioners who voted against the non-discrimination ordinance —
Joyce Chilton, Dan Martin, and Kevin O’Neil — failed to return phone calls and
emails for comment.”
Certainly, these
26 words will never be able to convey the cowardice of these elected officials—indeed,
a frustrating, but arguably necessary-evil of objective reporting.
Good essay, Trevor, and you're right: It is frustrating as hell, and it will happen again. And again and again. The good news is, the higher you climb up the journalism ladder, the less likely people are to not return calls. This too is an indictment of those officials -- they have a responsibility to talk to their readers' representatives, not just those who work for large-circulation publications.
ReplyDeleteOne point about those 26 little words: "Failed" is inherently judgmental. Just say "did not return." It would be accurate, however, to note they did not return "repeated" calls and emails. You're only stating the facts, but it's clear to your readers that those people are dodging the press.