Religion-journalism critic Terry Mattingly has a bone to pick with lamestream media reporting on the Chick-fil-A flap. Exhibit A: CNN's 125-word blog post on Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's remarks about the nature of marriage. Here's the sentence that ruffled Mattingly's plumage: "But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social-media wildfire." About gay marriage? Mattingly isn't buying it:

Now, one would assume after reading a reference to the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage that this interview from the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina (which was circulated by Baptist Press) actually included direct quotes from Cathy in which he talks about, well, gay marriage.In this case, one cannot assume that.While the story contains tons of material defending traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, the controversial entrepreneur never talks about gay rights or gay marriage. Why? Because he wasnt asked about those issues in the interview.This raises an interesting journalistic question: Is a defense of one doctrine automatically the same thing as an on-the-record attack on the opposite doctrine? In this case, is it accurate for CNN (and others) to say that Cathy made comments about gay marriage when, in fact, he did not speak words addressing that issue?

Yes, let us pause for a moment to consider the importance of accuracy in reporting.In support of his claim that CNN's seven-sentence "report" (half of which consists of quotes) misrepresents Cathy's views on marriage, Mattingly summons quotes "from the actual interview" [in the July 7 Biblical Recorder, recirculated by the Baptist Press on July 16]:

We dont claim to be a Christian business, Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, There is no such thing as a Christian business.That got my attention, Cathy said. Roach went on to say, Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.

What Christian would object to that? "And the marriage thing?" Mattingly asks. More from the interview:

Some have opposed the companys support of the traditional family. Well, guilty as charged, said Cathy when asked about the companys position. We are very much supportive of the family the biblical definition of the family unit We are very much committed to that, Cathy emphasized. We intend to stay the course, he said. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

Hang on. What did Mattingly replace with ellipses? Here's the full sentence: "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives." Married to their first wives. Interesting information for an accuracy cop to elide.Yet Mattingly, ever the strict constructionist, would doubtless deny that that point of information exonerates the author of CNN's three-paragraph "report." He writes:

It certainly would be easy for journalists to talk to the companys critics and, thus, to establish a gay-rights context for this discussion, if that is the goal. But that isnt my point, of course. That isnt what CNN, and others, did in their reports. They reported that Cathy made comments, that he spoke words directly addressing gay-rights issues, that he delivered a series of negative, anti-gay remarks. In effect, Cathy is being quoted saying words that he said, as well as words that he did not say.

Mattingly wants to know: Why would Cathy's critics gin up a gay-rights context where none exists? After all, as the man who conducted the July interview with Cathy points out, [Cathy] never even brought up that subject. Everything he stated was on the positive side. He never stated anything negative. Mattingly concludes his post: "Is it fair game to actually state, as fact, that the man said things that he didnt say?"Of course not. That's why lots of reports (many running well beyond 125 words -- here's one) quoted remarks Cathy made on a radio program last month. When I Google "Dan Cathy gay marriage," the fifth result is audio from that interview. Here's what Cathy said:

I think we are inviting Gods judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."I pray Gods mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.

Try not to be overwhelmed by the power of Cathy's positive thinking. There is no mystery about his concern. When he talks about the "biblical definition of the family unit" and staying married to "first wives," he's not just referring to the indissolubility of marriage. He's signaling his opposition to gay marriage. Nor is there any uncertainty about the kinds of charities his company's charitable arm supports (I'm not ready to call all of them "anti-gay"). What's mysterious is Mattingly's decision not to include any of that in his original post. Oh, as a follow-up post makes clear, it wasn't that he didn't know about Cathy's public comments about gay marriage. "Very old facts," of course. Why Mattingly didn't see fit to mention any of them in his original post, he doesn't say, beyond repeating the mantra, We just do media criticism here; pay no attention to the opinion behind the curtain. But if you're going to patrol the fair-reporting beat, then you shouldn't be surprised that when you charge journalists with inventing a "gay-rights context" for Cathy's public comments on marriage, people with internet access are going to point out that the person responsible for providing that context is Cathy himself.