When exgay activist Tim Wilkins spoke to a forum at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on Oct. 4, two campus newspapers offered two differing accounts of what transpired.
Joe Riddle has already reviewed Bradley Wooten’s article in the UWM Post.
By comparison, the UWM Leader offered an unanalytical and one-sided soapbox for Wilkins on Oct. 12. The latter article left numerous obvious questions unanswered.
The Leader spotlights a fight that broke out among three students during exgay activist Tim Wilkins’ two-hour speech Oct. 4. But while the newspaper identifies two of the three students, it does not investigate the basis of the fight. Wilkins endured that and other disruptions during a speech in which he claimed not to be intolerant — but then smeared “liberal theology”:
“I’m not advocating the church reach out to the homosexual and just leave them-that’s what liberal theology teaches,” Wilkins said. “That’s like telling the sinner that pornography, lying, cheating, and murder are okay.”
According to the Leader, Wilkins said he engaged in homosexual behavior for 10 years, until age 22, and then waited another 11 years for his first attraction to the opposite sex. According to the newspaper, Wilkins repeatedly referred to homosexuality as a singular lifestyle.
The newspaper does not indicate whether Wilkins expressed any opposition to antigay discrimination and bullying. However, of diversity, Wilkins said: “Diversity is the freedom not to be a homosexual.”
If Wilkins ever provided any specific examples of his tolerance or acceptance for homosexuals, the newspaper does not report them.
Read the article — and then comment to the newspaper on its unanswered questions.
For more information:
In comments appended to the newspaper article, Stephen Bennett ridicules those who “demand ‘tolerance, acceptance, love and diversity’ — that is, until you bring the perspective you are bringing.”
An antigay writer for the American Family Association profiled Wilkins in 2001.
I noticed that most of the people in the comments area were not even at the event, they were simply ministers from other states. Stephen Bennett also left a comment.
And one person left a comment to try to shame Bradley because Bradley dared to write a story that was not propaganda for anti-gay zealots.
Apparently this article had a lot of errors, which even some of the ex-gay supporters had to point out.
“Wilkins engaged in homosexual activity for 12 years before deciding to abstain from his “unwanted same-sex attraction” at age 22.”
He started at age 10? No wonder he has a screwed up image of what a healthy gay relationship is like.
Yeah, that jumped out at me as well. Not to mention that, if (I don’t know the details) this experience he had was with an older person, then that was not “homosexual” contact, that was pedophila or child abuse. It’s one of those word choices that is used to imply to people that homosexuality is the same as pedophelia.
I hope Bradley is still lurking here, because I think that we can all agree that his article was a lot more balanced and had less glaring errors than this one. Kudos Bradley.
“I’m not advocating the church reach out to the homosexual and just leave them-that’s what liberal theology teaches,” Wilkins said. “That’s like telling the sinner that pornography, lying, cheating, and murder are okay.”
One read of Wilkin’s statement and the underlying fundamentalist political message in which he degrades liberal theology without elaborating on what is meant by the statement “just leave them”. Just leave them would be nice in the context in which these people just minded their own affairs. He ought to look within the fundamentalist church for sinners engaging in pornography, lying and cheating and how about the greatest one, adultery. I have yet to see them spell out how one becomes an ex-gay if one does not believe in god or jesus. I really do pity the gullible women that marry these closet queens because they will spend many lonely nights wondering where their christian husbands are when they are off cruising the parks.
In case he’s looking for liars, he doesn’t have to look far. The anti-gay movement is crawling with them.
Maybe they could open up some ex-liar camps and lobby Congress to protect marriage from liars.
Timothy, congress would be the first to attend the ex-liar camps.
lol
You’d have to drag them there kicking and screaming. Maybe they could try an exorcism for the lying demon.
The Leader told the story of what happened that night and what Tim was trying to say… he did not attend the event and report on what was being said through the lens of a preconceived agenda that clearly had this event as labeled “anti-gay.” If “critical reporting” has turned into reporters and writers saying what they want in the way that they want to because that is what they “feel” they saw and heard, then that would explain alot of the complaints about modern U.S. media.
Also I know personally that the fight was staged, I am 99% sure that the cell phone calls were “planned” (to say the least), the banner that was stolen was not stolen by “intolerant Christian zealots,” the pamphlets that were ripped in half and doused with water in the drinking fountains were also not done by those “crazy Christian zealots,” and the reactions of people opposed to this form of freedom of speech were also less than cordial.
Oh yes, and my opinions and first hand knowledge come from being the president of the group that asked Tim to talk… take that as you will (you know what I mean).
Dustin
I have no doubt that anti-exgay students were disruptive that night. It is unfortunate that the event was dominated by two warring factions of political correctness and intolerance.
However, the story would have benefited from details to substantiate 1) the nature of the fight, 2) Wilkins’ vague smears against liberals, gays, and diversity.
Mass media businesses demonstrate integrity when their stories report a fair (though often incomplete and imperfect) spectrum of facts and perspectives, not merely the unfiltered and wobbly allegations of one propagandist. This is why Fox News and The Washington Times are considered — across the news industry — as deficient in integrity: They are little more than P.R. tools for bellicose social conservatives.
The UWM Leader isn’t that bad, but the particular article about Wilkins was much shallower and uninformative than it could have been. Was there not a single critic of Wilkins — or Wales’ organization — who had something substantive to say in reaction to the speech? The Leader misleadingly divides the event into two uncouth factions (Wilkins and the protesters) with no thoughtful middle ground.
James, I am still “lurking around here.” 🙂
It’s all been very interesting seeing people’s reactions. There was a problem in our network in publishing the story online. Initially, a draft version of the article was published and that’s the one people are referring to with errors. If they say that story had errors and bias, they were right – it did. Upon seeing the wrong version of the story was online, it was immediately fixed.
The article that ran in the newspaper was the correct version.
I’m actually going to respond to Wilkin’s in a direct and analytical way sometime soon. For now, the foreknowledge of that will have to do as I have a lot of homework to do. But I will be pointing out the sickening and twisted way in which people like Wilkins twist and manipulate facts and take things out of context to further a cause.
That’s what good journalism tries to abstain from. Wilkins, and others like him, engage in it because of its success. The key difference is because Wilkins is not a member of the media, he can get away with it without criticism.
As far as the Leader’s account of the incident, in my opinion, focusing on a staged fight (“gorilla theater”) for the main part of the article is ridiculous. The UWM Post mentioned it but immediately identified it for what it was – staged.
The UWM Post took to relaying the details and message Wilkins brought – and that’s what has sparked controversy.
More on this later.
Wow. It’s been over two months and I just happened across this now. As the writer of the alleged “soapbox” article that I wrote for the UWM Leader after Tim Wilkins came to town, I feel I have to defend myself.
First, working on a one day deadline, I had no idea the fight was allegedly staged. Had that been brought to my attention I would have included that in my story, most likely my lead.
Second, I was writing the article for a news reporting class I am in. The assignment was to cover the speech, what it was about, and what was SAID. Since I am a very liberal person, I’ll admit I found it rather difficult to actually cover the event without incorporating my own personal bias. I feel that my article is relatively unbiased and straightforward, as did my professor (who gave my article an A). My professor said the event sounded like “Jerry Springer” which I would have to agree with. I think my article reflects that. My girlfriend and I were sitting behind the students who fought, but luckily, sensing the altercation, we had moved about 2 minutes before it happened.
Thirdly, my efforts to discuss his appearance with the UWM LGBT Alliance were unsuccessful, so I was relegated to quoting an email that was forwarded to me. I didn’t like doing it, but it was necessary considering I was working under two strict deadlines.
I’ve met Bradley before, and if he found my article “ridiculous” I wish he would’ve told me that in person.
As for giving Wilkins another “soapbox,” that is ridiculous. I simply reported on what he said to me, within the context of when and where he said it. It wasn’t my job to try and discredit either side.
If you’d like to read my opinion based articles, feel free to read my music articles in the paper.
Thanks!
Kyle R. Zwieg