Someone alerted me to this discussion from last weekend's Reliable Sources show hosted by Howard Kurtz on CNN. I've never really watched the program but it's a media program dealing with media coverage. So meta. This past week's segment featured a conservative radio host named Dennis Prager and a liberal blog founder named John Aravosis.

Kurtz began by noting that the coverage of the New York legislature's vote to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions was celebratory, "almost relentlessly positive." He said "You have to admit that most of the media gave this vote the equivalent of a standing ovation."

Aravosis said that the media always cheerleads for the victors of any fight. He said that the media were positive when President Obama was victorious and also positive when Rep. John Boehner was made Speaker of the House.

Kurtz followed up by asking if the media cheered on the victors in California's Proposition 8 vote, which banned same-sex marriage.

It was a rhetorical question, obviously, since quite opposite happened.

Anyway, the debate probably would have gone better with a different representative who supports the way the media have covered the topic. I'm certain that there are more thoughtful people to defend that point of view. But it's still a worthwhile conversation.

Kurtz also asks whether proponents of traditional marriage laws aren't also in some way responsible for the disparate coverage.

Mostly I'm just impressed that Kurtz broached the topic on his show and asked some tough questions of people with differing viewpoints. It would be nice if he could point out the particular conflict between religious freedom and gay rights in a country where the state has gotten in the business of using religious infrastructure to accomplish its policy goals (e.g. adoption services, foster care, etc.).

Is this a sign that media types might work to cover the topic better?