CNN, like other major news media outlets, uses representatives from the professional anti-gay industry, including certified hate groups, to present what has become known as “balanced” coverage. We’ve all see these right-wing anti-gay extremists be invited on CNN, FOX, and other networks, supposedly representing a valid point of view. They are not, especially when they are tools of the anti-gay industry. GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has decided enough is enough, and has targeted CNN for its refusal to end this ludicrous practice.
(Even MSNBC is not immune from these tactics. Its own veteran anchor Chris Matthews last month told Tony Perkins, the president of the hate-group the Family Research Council, “Tony, you’re always welcome here.”)
Think of it this way: If you had a child molester debate a district attorney about whether or not child molestation was OK, would you consider that a valid journalistic piece? At some point, the “opinions” of certain groups of people just aren’t valid.
GLAAD often works behind the scenes, trying to educate people and organizations as to what is appropriate when it comes to the LGBTQ community. Often, they are successful, the organization makes changes and the public doesn’t need to get involved. It’s when organizations or companies, in this case, CNN, refuse to make changes to how they operate that GLAAD goes public. In this case, they are absolutely right to do so.
In a public petition GLAAD says, “CNN has long been one of America’s most respected journalistic organizations on many issues, but for several years, it has had a giant blind spot when it comes to issues that impact the LGBT community. On December 21, John King USA ran a segment featuring Peter Sprigg from Family Research Council, but there are countless other examples. Out of a desire for ‘balance’ on these issues, CNN turned – as they often do – to the anti-gay industry to provide the counterpoint. Except all too frequently, the network doesn’t book these people because they provide any actual expertise or experience on issues that impact LGBT people; their only qualification is that they are anti-gay.”
“During that John King segment on the pending repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and its implementation, King featured openly gay former service member Alex Nicholson, alongside Sprigg, who is a “senior fellow for policy studies” at the Family Research Council.
“Nicholson’s qualifications were clear. As an openly gay, former Army intelligence officer, he gave firsthand accounts of how the policy played out in the day-to-day lives of gay and lesbian service members.Sprigg’s qualifications, however, came exclusively from his job at the Family Research Council. There, Sprigg has worked to advance some of the most hurtful, dangerous, and demonstrably false notions about the lives of LGBT people that our country has seen in recent years. And yet, by pairing him with Nicholson in this segment, CNN told its millions of viewers that both of these men should be seen as equally valuable to this discussion.
“Is it important for the media to take these groups on? Of course it is. But that’s not what CNN and other media organizations are doing when it invites these groups to take part in otherwise reasonable discussions. The media is elevating their hurtful messages and attitudes to the level of rational discourse. The media is saying that people like Alexander Nicholson, who can speak to real-life experience and firsthand facts, need to be “balanced” by people like Peter Sprigg, whose claim to fame is arguing that being gay should be outlawed. If CNN wants to interview a gay person who believes being straight should be outlawed, THEN Peter Sprigg would be an acceptable “balance.”
“CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming.”
CNN offered a terse response (via TV Newser):
“CNN appreciates GLAAD’s concern for objective and fair reporting. CNN will continue to strive for the best bookings of experts who have opinions that reflect different points of view across the country.â€
In other words, buzz off.
CNN has struggled with ratings for well over a year now. Is this approach, using know hate-mongers to gin up opinion and emotion the best way to rebrand itself? I think not. What do you think? Should professional hate-mongers be elevated to share the same platform as those who have a real-world, valid point of view?