The first paragraph of the AP story includes "that she believes gays have no purpose in life" yet the quoted remark replaces that with part with an ellipsis. I believe her direct quote is even on video, is it not?
Being ambiguous in journalism is sometimes necessary when facts aren't nailed down completely. But that can't be the excuse here.
I've had a few friend's and family members who've worked for the AP. Apparently the last couple of years have been rather odd over there. They're cutting staff, eliminating freelance, and the guy running it is attempting to turn it into a sort of right wing pudit and opinion factory. It doesn't make a lot of sense, particularly from the inside. Things like this keep cropping as a result.
If you criticize AP for their rendition of what Medley said, and you say "She said this:", shouldn't it be followed by as accurate a transcript as possible? The WTWO reporter's question in not accurately rendered, not by a long shot. And Medley's "I don't understand" is followed by a flash cut - we don't know how much interpretive context is lost here. All we have is the video as edited for air, and as a source for personal or institutional critique, that leaves much to be desired.
What question is Medley trying to answer? Again, we're limited by editing for air, but the preceding context seems to be does God have a reason to put particular individual gay people into your particular individual life?
Medley doesn't understand. You don't understand -- unless you first believe people show up in your life just because God decided to put them there (much less the parts about God having a mysterious plan for all the awful things he does, like inserting annoying/sick/toxic people into your personal narrative).
Anyway, that context leads to a much different (and more plausible) reading of the available text, vs your preferred "Gay lives are utterly without meaning or purpose, because God wouldn't allow that."
re AP, it may be swinging inexorably to the right. UPI made the turn a long while back, and now it's little more than an echo chamber for the rightwing nutbags of the Washington Times. Once you go whack, there's no way back.
Being ambiguous in journalism is sometimes necessary when facts aren't nailed down completely. But that can't be the excuse here.
What question is Medley trying to answer? Again, we're limited by editing for air, but the preceding context seems to be does God have a reason to put particular individual gay people into your particular individual life?
Medley doesn't understand. You don't understand -- unless you first believe people show up in your life just because God decided to put them there (much less the parts about God having a mysterious plan for all the awful things he does, like inserting annoying/sick/toxic people into your personal narrative).
Anyway, that context leads to a much different (and more plausible) reading of the available text, vs your preferred "Gay lives are utterly without meaning or purpose, because God wouldn't allow that."
re AP, it may be swinging inexorably to the right. UPI made the turn a long while back, and now it's little more than an echo chamber for the rightwing nutbags of the Washington Times. Once you go whack, there's no way back.