on fox news there were a few outright denunciations of the rulings, but there was a call for balance. what i m concerned about is in this conversation that we re respectful that both sides can be heard without people who believe in traditional marriage being branded as intolerant or anti-gay. i don t like that, okay. so were much of the media rooting for what was being framed as a victory for gay rights? joining me now, steve roberts from george washington university. terence smith, former reporter on pbs, cbs news and the new york times. and jane hall, associating professor at american university s school of communications. steve roberts, was there any question in your mind that the underlying tone has been pro same-sex marriage in the media coverage? no question at all. i think there has been a lot of cheerleading, but at the same time there s a lot to cheer about. what s a great story. you know, this is a great story in terms of people who have
forgetting something very important, which is that a year ago in march, george zimmerman wasn t arrested for a month, and this story became one of the most covered stories of the year, right behind the presidential election, for a month. and now cable news is following up by following this trial that was a tremendous story when people were pressing florida to prosecute george zimmerman. now, you look at the jodi arias trial, you look at even the casey anthony trial, these are murders where you can see murders like that, unfortunately, many times across the country. i would ask sharper questions about why those stories got blanket coverage rather than a murder trial that became an international story that inspired protests across the globe in a sense. people wearing hoodies in new york city, people wearing hoodies in chicago. we are now seeing the trial that s the result of that huge
ominous turn. to the extent that you have aided and abetted snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn t you, mr. greenwald, be charged with a crime? the assumption in your question, david, is completely without evidence. the idea that i ve aided and abetted him in any way. if you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist who works with their sources and receives classified information is a criminal. david gregory says he s just asking questions and reflecting what s out there, but did he legitimize the motion that a reporter should, could maybe be prosecuted for doing his or her job? well, he said you are to the extent you are aiding and abetting. and what wasn t clear was, was he questioning his reporting or some allegation that he assisted snowden in his escape. and if it s the first, it s totally inappropriate. if it s the second, that s another matter. i m all for asking glenn greenwald, who played a central role in this story,
protest. you know, is 24-hour coverage excessive? of course. but this level of attention is to be expected, given the scope of the original story. well, i would argue, jane hall, that the jodi arias trial was also wildly overblown given its importance or lack thereof. but when i see anchors on hln, for example, doing reenactments of the crime scene and the specials and the theme music, i have to ask even if you all agree that this has very compelling elements, i have to ask whether or not television, much more so than the newspapers, are exploiting this and merchandising it for ratings? well, i think that you know, i think that it is very important to remember that this was not even going to be charged so there was an outrage over the lack of coverage. it became a national story. that was the fuse action you re saying. i think that was the fuse. now we have what appeared an also the 911. whether it deserves 24/7 is a question. but i think to dissect his friend s testimony in
this argument. and the other side, the opposition, didn t get much time or attention at all. i saw chris hayes had a show in which he had one good guest after another applauding the ruling. but there wasn t any other voice from the other side. that s wrong. referring to chris hayes msnbc show. jane hall, contrast the tone of this pair of rulings by the supreme court with the decision the day earlier to strike down the heart of the voting rights act. there i found the tone underlying to be disapproving, skeptical, challenging. well, i think it was regrettable that two very important stories happened one day after the other. rachel maddow was pointing out the voting heights story was highly consequential. the gay marriage story was viewview ed celebratory. there was a lot of happiness. the supreme court was probably mirroring public opinion and the media were mirroring the supreme