Mike Tidmus

This morning, Washington Post Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, responded to the charge that Monica Hesse’s article last week on the National Organization for Marriage’s Executive Director, Brian Brown, was 100% pure puff … journalistic fluff … and complete and utter crap!

Hesse has been blistered in the blogosphere, even cast as a bigoted conservative who endorses a homophobic agenda.

I agree that the story fell short, but not because Hesse was naïve or lacked journalistic diligence. In retracing her reporting, it’s clear the research was extensive. And some details about her personal life seem to belie claims she has a conservative agenda (more on that later).

‘Later’ we learn that Monica Hesse is, in fact, bisexual and currently in a relationship with a man. However, Hesse was previously in a relationship with a woman with whom she discussed, in her own words: “health insurance, kids, houses and marriage.” Hesse concluded, “You can bet that I found the fact that our marriage wouldn’t have been legal to be wrong as hell.” To which Hesse quixotically adds: “That doesn’t mean that what NOM is trying to do and how they are trying to do it are not important to hear about.”

That’s well and good perhaps, but where in Hesse’s piece was the perspective of those opposed to Brown and the National Organization for Marriage’s malicious, multi-state campaign against marriage equality. It’s rare to read a story in a major publication, especially one with the reputation and credibility of The Washington Post, about a GLBT issue without having to endure a fairly unbalanced response from the likes of NOM’s Maggie Gallagher or a carpetbagging crusader like Bishop Harry Jackson, who, while not a resident, is currently looking to undermine marriage equality in Brian Brown’s new neighborhood, Washington DC, and who just happens to make an appearance in Monica Hesse’s article.

The story suggested those fighting for same-sex marriage should fear Brown because he’s civil, “instantly likable” and a “thoughtful talker.” Brown is effective because “he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.”

Hesse said she decided to let Brown tell his story, as opposed to extensively quoting what others say about him. Her editors didn’t object to the concept.

[ ... ]

Fine in theory. But it deprived readers of hearing from others who have battled Brown and find him uncivil and bigoted. To them, he represents injustice. They should have been heard, at length.

“In a profile piece, for a controversial figure like that . . . there should certainly be the other side of it,” said Fred Karger, head of a group called Californians Against Hate.

In retrospect, Style editor Lynn Medford agrees. “The lesson is to always, in some way, represent the other side,” she said.

Karger, who has fought with Brown over same-sex marriage in California, said, “He is just as shrill, just as anti-gay as any of the leading gay-bashers” have been over the years.

It’s a comfort to know the lesson’s been learned — albeit a week late, but it’s still shocking that an editor at a major national publication was either asleep at the wheel or has no sense whatsoever about how the words a professional writer chooses for an article will be interpreted by the publication’s readers. These days, any newspaper, periodical or television network that resorts to publishing or broadcasting material that even remotely gives the appearance of anti-GLBT bias, as Hesse’s piece did, deserves to and is going to get blistered, as the The Post‘s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, put it.