New bill would authorize Pride flag to be flown at Stonewall
Gillibrand introduced the bill and said the removal of the Pride flag should not happen again.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCredibility rates nystateofpolitics.com, which republished this story. The other scores rate the article itself.
The named author and local-news source type support a credible regional-news assessment. The article relies mainly on lawmakers’ statements and a National Park Service statement, with limited detail about the bill and no response from the administration.
- Source type — Local-news publisher, a credible regional reporting source.
- Author attribution — A named author is identified.
- Source selection — Includes statements from the lawmakers and the National Park Service, but no administration response.
- Transparency — The article identifies its author but offers little detail on the bill or reporting process.
The article gives the lawmakers’ stated purpose and includes the National Park Service’s flag policy and information about a lawsuit. It is brief, does not provide the bill’s text or number, and includes no response from the administration.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The story includes the National Park Service’s explanation of its flag policy, but most quoted views come from lawmakers supporting the bill. The administration’s perspective and details of the bill are not presented.
- Counterarguments presented — The National Park Service’s flag policy is included, but no defense of the directive from the administration appears.
- Source diversity — Sources include three lawmakers, the National Park Service and a group identified as suing.
- Opinion vs reporting — The article is presented as reporting, with opinions attributed to their speakers.
The article reports the bill and quotes the lawmakers’ criticism of the flag’s removal, while also giving the National Park Service’s stated policy. Its framing is largely factual, though it offers no response from the administration.
- Language tone — The reporter uses straightforward language; critical terms appear in attributed quotations.
- Source selection — The lawmakers’ views receive the most space, alongside the National Park Service’s policy statement.
- Framing — The story centers on the bill and the circumstances prompting it without an explicit editorial verdict.
Republished
Republished from Ny1. The relationship between the two publishers has not been determined.
Not rated.
Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and Daniel Goldman introduced a bill that would authorize the Pride flag at national park sites such as the Stonewall National Monument, after the flag was removed under a Trump administration directive.
The article reports that Schumer, Gillibrand and Goldman introduced legislation to make the Pride flag a congressionally authorized flag, which could allow it to be flown at national park sites such as Stonewall. The flag had been taken down following a Trump administration directive. The National Park Service said only congressionally or departmentally authorized flags were allowed on its flagpoles, with limited exceptions.
Schumer said the bill would protect each national park’s ability to decide what flag to fly, and criticized Trump’s actions toward the LGBTQ community. Goldman and Gillibrand also condemned the flag’s removal. The article says advocates raised the flag again and that some groups filed a lawsuit alleging that history and science were being erased.
Community verdict
17 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →
Representative and co-introducer of the bill
Goldman's version of this story ↗
Senate Minority Leader and co-introducer of the bill
Schumer's version of this story ↗
President whose administration issued the directive that preceded the flag’s removal
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…