Blogger Mike Ditto confirms that a March 1994 article in We The People quoted former Love In Action participant Tom Ottosen recalling LIA director John Smid favoring suicide over acceptance of one’s same-sex attraction. (Yes, that’s a mouthful.)
Case settled? Not entirely.
As Ditto notes, the recollection is second-hand.
But beyond the potential inaccuracies introduced by one eyewitness’s fallible memory, there is the matter of a given first-hand source’s reputation for accuracy and context.
If we accept Tom Ottosen’s recollection at face value, despite the absence of a track record demonstrating Ottosen’s credibility, then shouldn’t we also accept, at face value, the recent reporting of a Washington Times reporter?
On May 9 The Washington Times quoted PFLAG
deputy executive director Ron Schittler saying, unbelievably, “Our beliefs are superior.” Antigay religious right activists including Exodus president Alan Chambers quickly capitalized on the quotation — not particularly caring whether it was accurate or whether it reflected the context of Schittler’s remarks. In an online message that has since aged off of PFLAG’s web sites, Schittler denied the gist of the Washington Times report. Exodus and its antigay allies declined to pass along Schittler’s denial to their audience.
I spoke today with Schittler via telephone; he again denied the essence of the report and does not recall saying “our beliefs are superior” or words to that effect. He felt that the Washington Times reporter had written his own political spin on Schittler’s message, put the spin in quotes and attributed it to Schittler. I don’t know the Washington Times reporter; I do know the Times’ lousy reputation for accuracy in reporting; and I have no reason to disbelieve Schittler.
My point is this: John Smid also denies an embarrassing quotation.
Like Schittler’s alleged remark, Smid’s remark needs to be assessed within the context of the speaker’s ideology: Does it fit?
And should activists be eager to grab whatever nasty soundbite they can, or should they look at the context of an individual or organization’s overall track record?
Hey thanks for continuing to follow up on this Mike.
The difference I see here is that Ottosen is not a public figure, one who puts himself into the limelight. The executive director of PFLAG is a public figure.
The journal through which Ottosen spoke was a small circulation one, aimed at the glbetc community. In which case, it would seem Ottosen was speaking to his immediate community.
The Washington Times, on the other hand, is a journal associated with the extreme right wing. It is the voice of the religious right. One of its aims is tp spread a particular kind of conservativism. According to many blogs, especiall Accuracy in Media, the Times has a long history of distorting statements from non right wing types of people. I would suggest asking their about the credibility of the times. And checking out Media Matters archive on the Washington Times.
I would be inclined to believe something that came from a small circulation, locally oriented publication, one focused on a small subpopulation. There is no particular incentive for anyone connected with this to lie. On the other hand, the Washington Times has been caught over and over again telling deliberate falsehoods.
So, I feel that to say these are two identicle type statements ignores context. Ottosen spoke to a small audience, long before LIA became an issue. He never went on to promote his story, in fact seems an entirely private individual.
Yet I think it’s worth considering that PFLAG’s beliefs are superior — at least in terms of the proper treatment of gay people. It’s a dangerous game to assert moral superiority, and one of the things that the gay rights movement has over fundamentalist Christianity is our ability to accept difference (within limits), but honestly: can we honestly say that a movement who considers us more dangerous than cigarette smoking has a point? I think there are times when it’s quite fair to say that our ideas are better.
I have to agree with Dalea’s reasoning on this one. My problem is not whether someone/thing has a history of telling the truth–I make the assumption that someone who has nothing to gain by it does not make a history of telling lies–but rather whether someone/thing has a habit of telling lies. The Washington Times has a history of telling lies. Thus, I see nothing wrong with accepting the recollection of Ottosen at face value while holding the Times up to a much more (well-earned) strict scrutiny.
I agree with Jon-Jon. While Schittler’s comment should certainly be taken within the context he intended, this is a matter that should be part of a serious dialogue.
The Right-wing wackos talk about the “Sanctity of Life” and the “Sanctity of Marriage” but do you ever hear them once stop and consider the “Sanctity of Humanity”?
The Sanctity of Respect that comes from accepting that differences DO EXIST and it is POSSIBLE to co-exist, even to mutual benefit, despite the differences.
From a more Judeo-Christian point of view, it is often talked about the beauty of creation, of nature from the majestic moutain peaks to tranquil river valley and all the abundance of life you find. Pondering this fills most people with awe as they think of a Creator that put this diversity, this beauty, together.
Yet they stop like a road block when it comes to tolerance and diversity among their fellow humans. I ask, does not the same Creator who perfectly equip the birds of the air to co-exist with the creatures of the sea and animals on the land posess the ability to weave a complex, even beautiful, tapesty of diversity in human life?
Who are THEY to say that isn’t the case? Who are THEY to deny the sanctity of respect to their fellow human being?
Simply put, they don’t have any standing to do this. Rather they are putting themselves above any moral law. They are putting themselves about the “Sanctity of Humanity” and in the end, their intolerance, prejudice and hatred only tarnishes the beauty of all Creation.
Oh yeah… “respect”.Sorry, but… I do not need to see someone as a friend or foe to respond to B.S.Who cares what bisexual Smid thinks — he is selling an unproven, faulty product that is toxic to most people in the target group. His marketing spin is causing harm to people that want nothing to do with him or his ilk. He causes fear and doubt in heterosexuals, and fear and self-hate in homosexuals.Frankly Mr. Smid — put up the evidence, or move to late night sleazy adverts along with anti-ageing creame and Rock-Hard-Ab-Blasters-In-7-Days.But, I guess he’ll never say “You Will Be Heterosexual, Or Your Money Back!!!”Nope, that would be too much to ask — because he knows the truth is otherwise.
FYI – for those who have ears to hear. Because I wanted to write a column about the PFOX/PFLAG pflap, I emailed the reporter, George Archibald and informed him that Ron Schlittler was denying that the quotes in the Times article were accurate. Mr. Archibald replied:
“He absolutely did make the statement and our entire 30-minute interview on May 5, 2005 was tape-recorded. My story faithfully reflected Mr.
Schlittler’s views, in every way and in full context, almost chronologically from the interview. I quoted him verbatim in every instance where his statements are in quotes. Mr. Schlittler telephoned me several days after the story was published, late afternoon, to say he was very disappointed that I gave so much space to the ex-gay point of view, to which I responded that I am committed to telling both sides of a story fairly and fully, particularly where there is conflict, wherever possible with cooperation from all. He then said he did not believe he made the remark, “Our views are superior.” I responded, “You did say it and the interview was tape-recorded, so it’s on tape.” Mr. Schlittler did not request a correction or write a letter to the editor of The Washington Times taking issue with the quote, because it was his verbatim statement in the interview. A complete unedited tape of an interview from beginning to end does not lie.”
I wonder why Mr. Schlittler was troubled by that quote?
“Blood in the water” again Warren?
Was that an accurate quote of you as reported by Wayne Besen?
Oh, I’m sure Warren will address whether he ever wrote the “blood in the water” quote. I’m sure he will. He’s very committed to fair and full reporting.
So any minute now he’ll be responding with truth about whether there was a coordinated effort with the anti/ex-gay folks to pressure for his reinstatement.
Any minute now.
We can count on it.
Cuz he’s all about honesty…
… any minute now…
May I respond to comments made about me as a reporter for The Washington Times and The Times itself: We are not a “right-wing” newspaper, as some of your bloggers have incorrectly stated, mixing up opinions on the newspaper’s editorial pages with what appears daily in our news pages.
The Washington Times from its beginning has published the accurate, reported factual news every day, as best we reporters and our editors can find it, not “lies” as your slander-mongers have stated. Having worked as a reporter for The Washington Times for 23 years — breaking the Geraldine Ferraro story in 1984, the Michael Deaver story in 1985, the Barney Frank story (with partner Paul Rodriguez) in 1989, and the bulk of the Christian Coalition racial prejudice story in 2001-02, our track-record shows we are “equal opportunity” when it comes to reporting hypocrisy and scandal from left, right, or nowhere on the ideological spectrum. The Times’ news pages let the chips fall where they may every time without political or ideological favor. In our newsroom of 200-plus reporters and editors, we have everything in society – heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, married, single, young, old, pro-family, libertarians with and without morality, whites, blacks, Asians, even a pro-Mao Communist apologist on our foreign desk, one of the best reporters/editors one could ever find, who was at The Washington Star and has been with us from the beginning.
With that history, let me also say as a reporter on the “scandal beat” for more years than I want to remember, I and the paper have faced and survived four lawsuits for alleged slander and libel lodged against stories I reported and wrote. We never paid a cent after costly litigation and depositions – none came to trial — because those stories were accurate and seamless, we had all the documentation, and the lawsuits were frivolous acts by embarrassed story subjects. Even an editor of The Washington Times sued me and The Times because he used a company credit card to procure gay sex, and we found and reported it in the very first story of the 1989 “call boy” scandal series. That ex-editor dropped his lawsuit and even paid The Times a symbolic $1 court-ordered payment to acknowledge our story was accurate and his lawsuit was without merit.
So as to Ron Schlittler of PFLAG’s claim that he was misquoted in a story published by The Washington Times – he is dead wrong, and the fully-taped interview shows he said all that he was quoted as saying. Here’s the full quote in the story and link so you can read it for yourself:
“The whole reparative-therapy industry is selling snake oil,” PFLAG’s executive director said. “From my point of view, the PTA has no business providing a forum that presents as of equal merit that position. It’s unethical, frankly, [as if] you can force a left-handed person to behave as a right-handed person. Our beliefs are superior.”
The Washington Times, Tues., May 10, 2005, Page A4
https://www.washtimes.com/national/20050509-094332-3782r.htm
PTA conference disallows equal access for ex-gays
The National PTA conference is in Columbus, Ohio, June 23-26. Please let me know how I might cover it fully and fairly from your perspective. I’m a reporter who values all people, all views, but everything must check out factually, and documentation to verify is much appreciated and what we reporters must have.
Mr. Archibald,
My complaint with your article has nothing to do with whether PFLAG and PFOX each think themselves to be superior to the other. My complaint is that you compared the purpose of the two organizations as if they were equally related to the issue at hand.
The NEA, as was reported elsewhere, specifically brought PFLAG to present a program on bullying. This is program that has been in operation for some time and for which PFLAG has established a reputation of excellence.
Had the NEA accepted PFLAG’s bullying program and not PFOX’s bullying program, then it would definitely be appropriate to bring up such a show of bias. However, if PFOX has a similar program, I’ve not heard of it and they make no mention of it in their frequent press releases.
In fact, it would appear that PFOX opposes any anti-bullying campaigns. They are not specific as to whether they think that bullying is not taking place or if they don’t object to it taking place.
Had the NEA been interested in a presentation on the controversial subject of ex-gay ministries, then definitely both organizations should have been represented. This was not their focus.
Finally, even though there is a great deal of hype around PFOX, there is some uncertainty as to the actual existance of any such organization outside of its spokespersons. PFLAG can put you in contact with an actual parent or friend of a gay person in any city in this country. However, I’ve reviewed the contacts listed on the website for PFOX and, other than their spokespersons and persons employed by ex-gay ministries, they don’t seem to represent actual parents and friends of ex-gays.
In summary, it is a reasonable assumption on the part of a reader that you are showing a significant bias when the NEA is criticized for not including PFOX at their presentation for the following reasons:
a) PFOX has not yet shown themselves to be what they are claiming to be – a group that represents the interests of actual parents and friends of ex-gays (as opposed to activists in the anti-gay community)
b) PFOX has not yet shown that they have a program to address bullying (other than to suggest that anti-bullying programs ought not exist)
c) PFOX has not demonstrated that they have any program at all other than to advocate for ex-gay conversion and thus, as the NEA was not discussing ex-gay ministries, have nothing to contribute
For the NEA to invite PFOX to present about anti-bullying programs would be irresponsible. To criticize the NEA for thot including PFOX is either ignorant of the issue or biased.
… read “not including” where i wrote “thot including”
Thanks, George. Your paragraphing is ownly far worse than another poster (Regan) here as making your post impossible to read.
Let’s get something straight. As far as I’m concerned, the Washington Times is a Moonie operation. It has no credibility whatsoever. The fact that the Washington Times occasionally hits it right doesn’t mean very much. (Similarly with the other Moonie operation, the UPI. I stick to AFP and DPA)
Just my opinion. But you really should learn to do some paragraphing.
May I say to Timothy, posted at 10:36 p.m. EST – a full hour and a half after my post – your facts are wrong from the beginning, even though you had plenty of time to check your facts, which you unfortunately did not. It was the National Parent Teachers Association (NPTA), not the National Education Association (NEA), that rejected PFOX and accepted PFLAG. So the factual premise of your post is wrong.
As to your claim that I as a reporter have showed “bias,” that is preposterous. You can claim to like PFLAG and not like PFOX for whatever reason, but I am a reporter who has to pore through that thicket, and my conclusion is this based on thorough reporting: Both groups are valid, with different objectives, and ideological opponents thrashing it out in the public square. Your taking a position does not change the fact that the public at large deserves a fully reported story from all sides. That’s my job. If I have not done that, show me how.
I’m not on any side. What other news organizations have covered this story? Can you post the links for all to see?
Also, may I say to raj, posted at 10:47 p.m. EST, sorry about my paragraphing, but at The Washington Times, we have story length limits, and I am only allowed 15 to 17 inches (i.e. 15 to 17 sentences or paragraphs) on the inside pages, and longer (20-25 column inches) if the story makes Page A1.
So it is a huge discipline to report a story. and then be able to write it to give a complete report to readers within our story length limits, which make sense. The paper has to cover the world each day in a few sections. We have to be pithy as well as report all sides fully.
On this blog, you, Timothy and raj, apparently have your viewpoints and are only interested in promoting your views. My luxury, contrary to yours, is that my responsibility in every story is to report all facts and views, to give readers a full and fair report, if everyone concerned will cooperate to make that happen.
My own personal views make no difference, because my professional commitment, hued over three-plus decades, is to tell a full and complete story every time.
And throwing the pejorative, bigoted “Moonie” epithet at The Washington Times, because of its founder’s religious beliefs, makes no difference. Rate us on the news product, not the religious preference or other preferences of its founder. Do you call The New York times a “kike” newspaper because its founders and publisher are Jewish – or the Boston Globe a “mackrel-snapper” paper because its leaders and principal reporters are Catholic? Let’s eschew bigotry, please, and stick just with documented facts. Name-calling is wrong. It’s a way bigots avoid the real issues facing us regarding ending bigotry and ideological extremism of all forms and types, so that fairness and proper acceptance and discussion of all viewpoints can be attained.
“Press Conference
LIA will be hosting a press conference on Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11 a.m. at our facility at 4780 Yale Road. For more information, contact Tommy Corman at (901) 751-2468.”
As the publisher of exgaywatch, you’re entitled …as is any journalist, to attend the media conference and pose whatever questions you wish.
Lance,
Perth, Australia.
I appreciate the feedback from Messrs. Archibald and Throckmorton.
To the extent that quotes from LIA or PFLAG might be literally accurate, I think my original point is reinforced: I see a range of culture warriors and mass-media outfits feasting (profiteering, perhaps) on individuals’ poor choice of words instead of providing context. I see them jumping at juicy opportunities to divide people while overlooking boring opportunities to establish common ground or at least common language.
I’m not referring here to the Washington Times, PFLAG or LIA in particular; while I conveniently have colleagues who have personally seen deliberate bias injected into Page One at the Times, I’m just as disgusted at recent coverage in the Washington Post and on MSNBC, regarding other gay-tolerant and antigay organizations.
Given the shallowness, political cliches, and deliberate divisiveness that have overtaken my industry, I’m glad I’m getting out of direct involvement with the media. I’ll be happy to document specific weaknesses in coverage after I settle in at the new digs.
Hmmmm, it seems to me that in the phrase ‘Korean messiah’ the thought being emphasised is not ‘Korean’ but ‘messiah’. This is to point out that certain people who are forever carrying on about their religious rectitude and orthodoxy are indebted to someone who claims to be something utterly outside the boundries of his collegues beliefs. The issue is why are self proclaimed orthodox, traditional Christians consorting with someone who claims to be the messiah? Nothing racist about it.
On PFOX, the point being made is that there are not two sides to the PFLAG/ PFOX set up. There is PFLAG which is demonstrably an organization, with members and meetings open to interested persons. And then there is PFOX, which seems to consist of Ms. Griggs and the same 10 queens who are the sole public face of all exgay organizations. To represent what is put forth by each as being just two sides of an issue strikes many of the posters here as inaccurate. It is not two groups with opposed ideas. It is a group with ideas and programs on the one hand. And a conservative Christian shill with no following, no organization, no support on the other. I would suggest that part of journalism is investigating the good faith of participants. Is PFOX an actual organization in the same manner PFLAG is? Are there actually PFOX members as there are PFLAG members? Only when this is answered can the positions of the two be compared. Otherwise, it is comparing an actual group to a few right wing loonies.
Lance, is the address you post in Perth, Australia? Or is it in some other place. Just wondering.
Hi GeorgeLet’s not beat around the bush here : how did this “story” come to your attention in the first place? Who contacted you? (And yes, I expect you to give a name and the organisation they represent).Despite your claims about merely going through the motions of reporting on an item of interest; you have concocted a conflict between PFLAG and PFOX and reported as if the conflict was about the one and same issue.PFLAG has been running highly regarded anti-bullying programs for years. The NPTA decided to become involved — at at least some level — with an anti-bullying program. Hence, PFLAG receives an invitation to present their materials.PFOX, on the other hand, has NEVER been involved in anti-bullying programs. To the contrary, they have been actively preventing them. Why, therefore, do they feel entitled to even be considered by a NPTA who is exploring how to prevent bullying?What PFOX actually want to do has nothing to do with an anti-bullying program. What they want is to present a negative view of homosexuality, and gay men and women, to children. Their views are rejected by every mainstream professional organisation, and the distorted information that they release can be regarded as one of the very causes of anti-gay bullying in the first place (and worse). PFOX is wholly comprised of parents who are in conflict with the sexuality of their children. They are headed by a therapist who was found guilty of an ethics violation with a client.If that is what Schlittler meant by PFLAG’s views being superior, then I’d have to agree with him. He is correct. But your story conflates that perspective with the religiously-based moral outrage of a PFOX who demand a platform for their anti-gay views. Why should the NPTA feel obliged to give them that? You do not describe Griggs as an “activist”, although she plainly is; and you clearly had no qualms about describing someone else in that way.All of this you could also have reported — in the interest of giving “the public at large” the “fully reported story from all sides” that you claim they deserve.You did not. I see that as you failing at your job.Frankly, the story you presented could just as well have been written by PFOX; or at least edited by them. Come to think of it, that is worth asking you as well — was it?
As E. Warren Throckmorton appears to have resurfaced here:
Warren, a question was asked in another string. I’m sure you are able to quickly clear up any confusion about this.
Do you know the person in this testimony? How so?
https://www.loveinaction.org/media/documents/RebekahThrockmortonTestimony.pdf
Other questions for Prof. Throckmorton.
It’s never too late — answers are always welcome.
George Archibald at June 15, 2005 11:44 PM
Mr. Archibald, first, I was not referring to your paragraphing in the articles you write for the WashTimes. I have never read your articles in the WashTimes, and probably never will. I was referring to your paragraphing here. Your initial post filled up an entire screen of the browser, had no paragraph breaks, and for that reason (no paragraph breaks) it was incredibly difficult to read. That was one of my points. The post also rambled on and on seemingly without much of a theme, but that’s another issue which I’ll ignore.
Second, I believe it nice that you consider yourself a professional journalist. I really do. I recognize the difficulty of trying to report a story objectively. But, as far as I’m concerned, you’re working for an operation (the WashTimes) that to me has absolutely no credibility whatsoever, because of its ownership. It’s the Moonie newspaper. And the UPI is the Moonie press consortium. I’m not going to suggest that particular individuals in the Moonie newspaper or the Moonie press consortium aren’t good journalists–some may be. But, as far as I’m concerned, their association with the Moonie newspaper or press consortium taints the credibililty of anything they report. Guilt by association? Yes, most definitely, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.
NB: The American network NBC is (or was) largely owned by the US General Electric Company, a huge defense contractor. (There is also a British General Electric Company, which is why I specify US GEco.) Whenever I would see a news report from NBC (or any of their cable channels: CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, and even the SciFi channel!) that might have anything to do with to defense contracting issues, I would immediately discount it. Not because it might have not been true, but because there was an obvious bias in regards the company doing the reporting. I don’t dismiss it out of hand, but I would go to other sources to try to confirm the facts behind the report. Even to places like AFP or DPA. (DPA is a German language news feed–deutsche presse agentur–and I read German)
Third, I don’t know about tim, but I definitely have an agenda. I–a gay man 56 years old–would like to rights that are equal to those of have heterosexual couples. Like the right to marry my partner of 26 years, and to have that marriage recognized throughout the US. Since I live in Massachusetts, I have married my partner. But will my marriage be recognized if we travel to, say, Ohio (where my parents live in the summer) or to, say Florida (where my parents live in the winter)? Doubtful. So if my partner has a repercussion of his health problems when we are visiting my parents in either Ohio or Florida, what am I to do? Call his mother (who lives in Germany) and have her relate the necessary information to the hospital–because, in Ohio and Florida, I’m nothing more than a stranger to my spouse? We have bunches of documents, health care proxies and the like, but would the hosptials there recognize them? I don’t know, and I’m not going to risk the issue. I’d love to visit my parents in either Ohio or Florida, but I won’t do so without my spouse–and they have accepted him into the family–but I have to be very careful about doing considering visiting them. The anti-gay animous that is evident in much of the US is causing many practical problems for us, problems that you might not realize or understand. I’ll merely point out that I find it odd that our relationship is acknowledged better in our place in Munich than in the US–his mother lives in a suburb of Munich–than in the US, a mere 60 years after the defeat of the Nazis in Germany.
Fourth. This website is “ex-gay watch.” As far as I’m concerned, the problem with ex-gay organizations is not that they provide counseling for people who want to be “ex-gay.” Although, as I’ve posted here before, I’ve known people who have gone from apparently gay to apparently straight. I’ve also known people who have gone from apparently straight to apparently gay. I’ve also known people who have gone from apparently straight to apparently gay to apparenty straight to apparently gay, again, and the prime example of the last is my first boyfriend. And they didn’t need an “ex-gay ministry” to do it for them. They just did it. And they didn’t oppose equal rights for people who were gay while they were doing it. So who are these “ex-gay ministries” trying to kid by opposing equal rights for people who are comfortable with being gay? Seriously.
I have to agree that we must be fair as we examine the people whose views we oppose. Although I do believe that PFLAG has superior beliefs, regardless of the validity of the Smid quote, LIA does enough damaging work that the quote is almost irrelevant. Yes, it’s horrible if true, but LIA’s every day actions are the true horror here.
Thank you, Michael, for hosting my comments regarding this reporter’s commitment to full and fair reporting at The Washington Times. All people with their own biases and agendas on the gay/ex-gay issue obviously have a right to their opinions, and thank you for giving venue to that. I shall continue to cover the continually unfolding story as fully as I can, with support from my editors, sources, newsmakers, and our readers and advertisers. Those of your bloggers who attack us, while also admitting they have not read our stories and do not want to do so, leave us with the inevitable question: What is the basis for their statements and conclusions, if not informed by the factual record? To any fair-minded person, the question answers itself, as several of your bloggers attacking The Washington Times have admitted blind and selfish prejudice in behalf of their chosen lifestyle, and do not give credence or equality to people who choose otherwise. Plus they have resorted to the age-old tactic of attacking the messenger and attacking religious beliefs of those with whom they disagree, showing a further degree of intolerance on their part. So the debate is joined, and the story will continue. My editors have instructed me to continue reporting the story fully as it continues to unfold at the National PTA Convention in Columbus June 23-26 and the National Education Convention in Los Angeles July 1-6, and thereafter. Thank you also for being a venue for airing the unfolding debate and story for your readers.
George,It is not intolerant to point out what someone sees as your failings as a journalist, or the flawed information given out by anti-gay groups or a false claim to being unbiased when everything points to the contrary. Your perception that “a fair minded person” is one that agrees with you completely undermines your demands of others.For example, point out a single occasion where your “blind and selfish” people at XGW or PFLAG or the NPTA have said that people shouldn’t be gay, straight, ex-gay or anything anywhere in-between. Go on — just the once. You cannot, because frankly “we” don’t care. This is in marked contrast to PFOX, who think is does matter and who do not hesitate telling people how to live their own lives (or else!).You have expressed some fairly direct personal remarks about the people in here, but you haven’t mentioned you previously worked for Regent University. How is Marian these days? Not that it should matter, but many of us are fully aware of the direct personal relationships between Regent et al and PFOX et al. You also haven’t mentioned your role at God’s World Publications. Again, it shouldn’t matter — I just hope this isn’t colouring your journalistic outlook, or determining what you report on, or that people reading yourself may be unaware of your associations with organisations that clearly have their own particular “biases and agendas”.Let’s all be open about ourselves, and look at the heart of the issues; rather pretending not have a personal interest at stake and all the while accusing others of being biased and manipulative. If you are not interested in knowing why the ex-gay groups are so negatively regarded by so many laymen and all the professional bodies, that is of course your right. But please don’t flatter yourself with being fully informed.Oh, jeez, why am I even bothering; I’m just a chosen lifestyle. I’ll just skulk back into my assigned box (the one labeled “Scapegoat”).[Sorry Mike — but, aah… that feels better!]
Bugger, did the Post before attending to the cardinal rule in here:https://www.worldji.com/teachers.asp?educator_id=70
And we all remember discussing this article months ago:https://www.washtimes.com/national/20050316-110725-3000r.htm
George Archibald at June 17, 2005 01:04 AM
Those of your bloggers who attack us, while also admitting they have not read our stories and do not want to do so…
Mr. Archibald, there are only so many hours in the day. I can waste them in a number of ways. I can waste them working. I can waste them reading blogs (and I am not a blogger, btw, I am a commenter). I can waste them having sex with my partner, too.
Give me one reason why I should waste them reading stories from WashTimes.
George Archibald,
Let me first indicate that I really don’t care at all about the ownership of the paper. Although I do not subscribe to your paper, I do periodically read articles of interest to me online.
I admit I incorrectly stated that the inviting organization was the NEA rather than the NPTA. However, I don’t think that invalidates the concerns that I raised regarding your article.
I pointed out three reasons why your readers might reasonable assume bias. You did not address any of these issues. So I put them to you now in the form of simple yes/no questions:
Question One: Is it relevant to you as a reporter whether or not PFOX is what they claim to be (a national organization of parents and friends of ex-gays)?
Question Two: Does PFOX have an established and successful anti-bullying presentation?
Question Three: Does PFOX have any program other than ex-gay ministry support (an actual program that has been used and tested)?
Question Four: Would it be relevant to have a presentation on bullying in which one organization had nothing to contribute related to bullying but instead focused on ex-gay conversion?
Question Five: Is it a fair to suggest that the NPTA should include PFOX simply because they invited PFLAG without any consideration of the reasons that PFLAG will be there.
I truly do hope you actually address the issues I’ve raised and honestly answer the above questions. I can disagree with you on any number of subjects and still respect your positions provided that they are honest.
Also, I can respect that you are entitled to your own perspective. However, as a reporter, I’m sure you know that to be taken seriously on a subject you cannot show obvious bias. Although you may not intend it to come across as biased and slanted, the following phraseology certainly suggests a predetermined position: “…several of your bloggers…in behalf of their chosen lifestyle…”.
PFLAG believes that gay persons do not “choose” their sexuality; PFOX believes they do. For you to use the term “chosen lifestyle” suggests that you share PFOX’s opinions and are willing to use their phraseology. With due respect, this does sound like bias (whether it exists or not).
In your continuing coverage of this issue, I would recommend that you avoid loaded phrases like that which suggest to readers that you have a position to champion. I would also suggest that you consider the purpose for the NPTA’s actions.
Before further articles are written criticizing NPTA, please ask yourself what PFOX would contribute to the anti-bullying effort.
Thanks