They needed a study? Apparently media quite pro-gay marriage

Some things are patently obvious to those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear, but for those of you who insist on imperical data, here you go, excuses included:

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism looked at nearly 500 stories on the topic over a two-month period that began just before the court started hearings in March on legalizing same-sex marriage. By a 5-to-1 margin, the stories with statements in support of legalization outweighed those dominated by opponents' views. But Pew said the results were in large part because many of the stories were about polls showing societal attitudes swiftly moving toward support for gay marriage, or about politicians announcing their support. A disciplined approach by supporters was also a factor, Pew found.

---

"Certainly it is evident in these findings the degree to which supporters of same-sex marriage were largely successful in getting their message out in a clear way, a consistent way, across a wide swath of the news media," said Amy Mitchell, acting director of the project. Supporters primarily defined the issue as one of civil rights. At the same time, Pew said, opponents haven't coalesced behind a single argument but instead posed many: homosexuality is immoral; same-sex marriage hurts families or society; civil unions are good enough; or government should not impose a new definition of marriage.

The last excuse is particularly interesting. Why should it be that supporters get more coverage because they all share the same reason for their support, whereas opponents get less coverage because they have lots of different reasons? Wouldn't that seem to suggest that all the different reasons for opposition offer lots of different storylines, and thus more stories to pursue? If there is only one reason to support it - it's civil rights - but lots of reasons to oppose it, that would suggest to me that a) opponents have the stronger argument; and b) opponents deserve a lot more coverage than they're getting. But you know the truth here. Supporters get more coverage because this is largely a media-created campaign. They have decided to get foursquare behind gay marriage as a cultural imperative, which is why every politician who announces support gets major coverage. Indeed, it's a bit of a racket going on between the media and attention-hungry pols. You want a day or two worth of glowing coverage? Come out for gay marriage and we'll give it to you. They don't even make a big deal out of the fact that you claimed to oppose it for years. They just let you slide with the explanation that your views have "evolved" or whatever. As for the coverage of opponents, much of that is not so much a matter of balance in coverage as it is an attack on the opponents for daring to break from the emerging orthodoxy. When 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver said just before the Super Bowl that he opposes gay marriage, NBC Sports labled his statement as "homophobic" and "disparaging." The media gave similar treatment to the likes of Adrian Peterson and Torii Hunter, both of whom are Christians. So when Pew tells you that a certain percentage of the coverage quotes opponents, keep in mind that the media treats the views of opponents with contempt and scorn, and the coverage reflects that. Of course, it's beyond ridiculous for the media to be going up to athletes and asking their views of gay marriage in the first place. They're doing it because they're trying to manufacture a news narrative, and that explains why this "study" produced the findings it did. All you have to do is read or watch a little to know the media's bias on this issue. Of course they're going to be biased when the entire issue is a media-invented campaign in the first place.