Has news reporting about gay marriage been imbalanced in favor of tolerance for gay people — or are the critics and ombudsmen giving more weight to antigay activists’ wobbly claims than is merited by fact, faith, law or science? Liberal watchdog group FAIR argues the latter case.
Touching on the antigay movement’s exploitation of exgay issues, FAIR says:
[Chicago Tribune ombudsman Donald] Wycliff provided another story suggestion, offered by Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute. LaBarbera, who Wycliff said argued that the media fail "to tell what he considers interesting and convincing stories that argue against gay marriage," suggested "stories like those of ‘guys who come out of the gay lifestyle’ and live straight lives."Wycliff’s failure to evaluate La-Barbera’s suggestion is troubling. Virtually all legitimate scientific groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have denounced the "ex-gay" movement’s attempts to change people’s sexual orientation as not only ineffective but potentially harmful. (See Extra!, 9-10/01.) Including such efforts in news coverage of gay marriage would lend credence to a discredited and damaging idea.
I disagree with that final sentence. I don’t have a problem with inclusion of exgay issues in marriage news — provided that the coverage is balanced with religious and scientific acknowledgements that exgay therapy rarely changes a person’s orientation — and that there is no single "gay lifestyle" or "straight life."
Imbalanced?
This sounds a bit odd in this context. “Unbalanced” sounds a bit better.
Sorry about the nit.
I think the media sometimes can’t decide what to cover because they have to stop and pause to ask, “do we understand the topic we are writing about?” It’s all in the angle and is it “news” or “documentary special” material. That’s why I believe topics outside of the main stream theme of “gays want freedom and civil rights” is not balanced in its presentation. AND, let’s face it, if you’re not gay you don’t really know what it’s like to be gay and covering a “heavy topic” like ex-gay gets harder and harder.
I am still confused by the need the media seem to feel to portray the existence of gay people, and our right to live our lives, as a political question. When dealing with the issue of gay marriage, why is the subject of “ex-gays” even relevant? The question of gay marriage is whether the government will recognize a specific type of relationship, and grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage on that relationship.
The fact that some homosexual and bisexual people reject the morality of those relationships should be a moot point. Catholics believe remarriage after civil divorce is a sin, and those in such marriages are actually committing adultery (which is pretty immoral), but, for instance, when “Today Throws a Wedding” segments are on the Today Show, and the bride is on her second marriage, they are not bringing on Catholic clerics to denounce the immorality of the wedding.
The media, in general, still fail to give gay and lesbian people the basic respect that all others are granted. Our very existence is called into question when these “ex-gay” and “pro-family” spokespeople are featured on news programs – why is the existence, not to mention the right to exist, of no other subculture ever questioned?