Waffle Fries With a Side of Freedom: The Chick-fil-A Pickle

I like Chick-fil-A. Always have. Probably always will. Before last week, there was no question in my mind where I would go if I were in the mood for some chicken fingers and a sweet tea (except for Raising Cain’s in Dinkytown. No question). Now, incredulously, I find myself in danger of making a “statement” by my choice of chicken.

When my friend told me last week, in disgust, that Chick-fil-A was “anti-gay,” (his words, not mine) I wasn’t surprised. I knew of Dan Cathy and his views and was aware that there was never any attempt to hide the fact that Chick-fil-A is an unabashedly Christian owned and operated company. As such, I was sure that the gay-marriage and gay-rights issue was going to come up sooner or later. However, when my friend told me that Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel, the mayors of Boston and Chicago, respectively, had publicly criticized and verbally banned the chicken chain from opening stores in their cities, I had to take a moment and gather my jaw from the floor.

Luckily, my friend and I, while having extremely differing viewpoints on most political issues, are intelligent and civil enough to where we can have discussions, often heated, with no fear of getting personal. So what followed was a lengthy discussion of the appropriateness of both Chick-fil-A’s gay-marriage comments and the ensuing firestorm of response. I’ll spare you the lengthy details, but he sided against Chick-fil-A, stating, “I have no tolerance for intolerant people.”

Now, this individual is quite smart and has a fondness for wordplay, so I assume he meant the statement somewhat as a joke, but he raises an interesting point that plays into my opinion on the matter:

The backlash against Chick-fil-A from gay-marriage supporters and gay-rights advocates has been so severe, yet I can’t understand why. I mean; I understand that millions of people are very passionate about gay-rights and believe that homosexuals should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples. I get it. What I still can’t understand, and this goes for some people on the opposite side of the issue as well, is why anyone would be so vitriolic towards an individual or group that holds a differing opinion.

Last time I checked, this was America. We have this nifty little document as part of our history called the Constitution. The First Amendment to that beautiful document says:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Through the years the wording and meaning of this sentiment have been diluted down to communicate, at it’s simplest, that under the Constitution of the United States of America, all Americans have the right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but under that umbrella I would put the right to hold an opinion on a divisive social issue. Therefore, although certain individuals may disagree, Dan Cathy is allowed to have whatever opinion he wants regarding the gay marriage issue. He doesn’t believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry under the same definition as heterosexuals. That’s his right. Conversely, to the millions of people who disagree with Cathy and think he’s wrong, they’re entitled to that right too. The beauty of America is that we all have the freedom to disagree. Unlike some fascist and police-state governments, we, as Americans, are supposed to be able to believe whatever we want and likewise be able to vocalize those beliefs. That’s a beautiful thing.

So as far as two sides disagreeing on a polarizing issue, I say “so what?” That’s America; but to major cities placing “bans,” official or not, on a business chain due to differences in belief? That truly makes my head hurt and I think both mayors should be publicly chastised. I repeat, they are entitled to their opinion, but this now has gone beyond the “gay-marriage issue.” When local governments declare a ban on a private business, it’s no longer a “gay-marriage issue” but now a freedom of speech and free enterprise issue.

Business should be allowed to operate in America regardless of the founders’ personal stances on political issues. If all business CEO’s had to unanimously agree on all issues political, religious, and otherwise, America wouldn’t exist.

Now, inevitably the anti Chick-fil-A activists may argue, “Well, what if a business opened up that was owned and operated by [insert any controversial group here, but for the purpose of this argument we’ll use:] the KKK and espoused their beliefs?”

Well, first I would say you’ve already lost your argument. Chick-fil-A, unlike the KKK, is not discriminatory in nature. Dan Cathy never said that his business ever has or will refuse to serve homosexuals or publicly discriminate or mistreat them as such. Therefore, it remains a free enterprise issue in addition to a matter of freedom of speech.

I’m continually baffled by individuals that, when faced with a divisive issue, take sides with such fervor and are livid when anyone else disagrees with them, as though their opinion suddenly holds more cosmic authority. To clarify, I am not criticizing all opponents of Chick-fil-A. As stated earlier, disagreeing and even protesting is their right. However, I still am asking for someone to point out exactly how it makes sense to hate and ridicule an individual or company because they’re not as “tolerant” as the individual would like.

The Aurora Incident: The Folly of Human Nature and the Current State of Media Journalism

*Note: I apologize if these statements may seem too wordy, rambling, or “academic.” This is how I think. With that in mind, I have attempted to edit the following down to reduce confusion and/or redundancy.

Regarding the horrific shooting that occurred in Aurora, CO in the early morning hours of July 20, 2012, words truly cannot express the grief and shock felt by this individual as well as an entire nation. Truly, this signifies a loss of innocence regarding one of America’s, as well as the world’s, favorite escapist pastimes.

Due to the enormous amount of coverage and narrative regarding that event, it is not my intention to write about what happened. My purpose in writing this is to document my observations and thoughts regarding the aftermath of said incident, specifically in two regards: in the coverage of the news media, in all formats, on that day; and in the reactions of individuals across the country.

As soon as the news broke on that Friday morning, I knew we, as a people, were going to be in for an interesting day. Call me cynical or pessimistic, but I have enough knowledge of how media/journalism works to know that it’s only a matter of time before a tragedy such as this is politicized and the facts warped and adjusted so statements and “conclusions” can be extrapolated from the most minute of details. Therefore, I was neither shocked nor surprised, but saddened when at 8:30 a.m. I heard the suspect described not as “shooter” or “perpetrator,” but as “Tea Party member James Holmes.”

As was revealed later in the day, that was a flawed piece of reporting. Apparently an affiliate at ABC News had found a connection through the tea party website listing a “James Holmes” in Aurora, CO as a member. Instead of verifying the link, ABC ran that as a description. It turns out that the James Holmes they were linking to the tea party is in his 50’s and has no relation to the shooter other than the coincidental name similarity. It appears as if no additional research or fact checking was done on the story, but ran as-is in an attempt to paint a broader picture, whether or not the picture was heinously flawed.

Later that particular day, the office where I am interning had a television on and tuned to a large cable news network for the duration of the workday. What I heard over the course of those several hours only continued to sadden me, as it seemed to signal a true end to (or perhaps, nonexistence of) competent crisis journalism in America. At about 10:00 a.m. a guest correspondent for the network made a statement in which he declared:
           

“Now, I’m gonna call this guy the Joker. He obviously was emulating the Joker; maybe even thought he was the Joker. And actually, the movie, ‘Batman 3’ is also known as ‘The Joker’s Revenge’.”

Keep in mind that this was before the official press conference, before any official statements had been made about the suspect’s arrest, and before anything had been released regarding the suspect’s hair color or supposedly referring to himself as “Joker.” Also, never has this film been known as “Joker’s Revenge” or been affiliated with the character of the Joker in any way. To me, it seems as though this “analyst” was making a mad grab for some, any, attempt at discerning a possible motive. He was not concerned with facts or that almost none of what he said could be verified at the time. He was just theorizing and passing it off as news.

This type of reporting continued, though thankfully not exclusively, throughout the day. After details of the suspect’s hair color were released I heard several different colors (mostly red and orange) but one thing remained constant: every organization that reported that the suspect had dyed his hair concluded that he had done so in homage to the Joker. Here is yet another point of contention. I am not trying to get into a comic-book fan debate about semantics, but the Joker’s hair is and always has been green. I can understand why journalists nationwide would want to jump to the conclusion that the suspect dyed his hair in tribute to the Joker, but I still can’t rectify how anyone could report that as news when the correlation doesn’t even match fact. (Last time I checked, neither red nor orange were identifiable as green to a non-color blind individual).

The more this continued, the more I was in disbelief at how poorly the whole situation was being handled. I heard various accusations of potential motive made (tea party member, occupy movement member, anarchist protesting the film’s consumerism) without ever bothering to report the facts or even support their theories in any way.

I said all that to get to this:

In times of crisis, particularly those caused by direct human action (bombings, shootings, mass killings, etc.) I think it is human nature to question “why?” In fact, I think this is the very first question people ask, both of themselves and others, when faced with processing such an event. Upon being informed of such despicable activity, the inquiring mind attempts to find some sort of reasoning behind it, because no typical individual can process it with rationale. I think the human mind, in these situations, is not satisfied with knowing just the facts, but first wants an explanation; hoping in some distant fantasy reach of the brain that there is some magic combination of words that can make the event less devastating. Or, perhaps it’s the case that humans, when faced with such a situation, cannot accept the fact that humanity is truly depraved and that a fellow human being is indeed capable of carrying out such an evil action. Therefore an attempt to find some sort of catalyst other than pure evil must be sought. Unfortunately this is a fruitless endeavor as there can be no justification to rectify the pain and horror of these tragedies.

I think this mindset has carried over into the media, seeing as how reporters and journalists are only human after all. As where the purpose of the conventional news media should be to simply report the facts, unfortunately this cannot always be the reality in a field where the message sent to millions is subject to the human emotions of the reporter. Instead of reporting minute by minute what details were known and verified and what statements had been officially released, journalists across the country were deviating from the facts by turning random bits of knowledge and rumors into logical stretches in an attempt to find some explanation of motive.

Although the facts were being reported as they were made known, the pervasive and constant question that superseded all knowledge was “why?” I think journalists and commentators everywhere were attempting to constantly answer that question, which is why theories and stories kept changing as more facts were released.

While noble in intentions, I think there needs to be a shift in priorities for journalists and all involved in news media. When faced with a story of crisis that lacks an immediate motive or explanation, the question of “why” should be the very last thing considered. Contemplating an answer to this question will only again result in muddling of the facts and theorizing on the part of individual journalists.

Instead, the four other questions should be of primary concern: “What, Where, When, Who.” No attempt should be made to discern the “why” until all other questions are answered thoroughly.

I applaud Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates for the spectacular job done at the first official press conference given Friday morning. When asked to detail police action, he gave only what had been verified. When asked about potential motive or anything related, he did not answer, recognizing that that was the least of concerns.

As much as it is against human nature, I think it is necessary for those in media, journalism, or any form of communications, to discipline ourselves to respond in the face of crises not in the ways in which we necessarily desire, but in the ways we must in order to most effectively and truthfully communicate our message.