« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/10/2007
Those who throw fire should have feet held to same!
In response to Out magazine's decision to prominently feature the not out Anderson Cooper on their list of the 50 most influential gays, Peter LaBarbera says today:
...if OUT is right, it might explain Cooper’s bias in his reporting on the homosexual issue: in a recent interview that the CNN host did with pro and con advocates on a ”gay parenting” story, he blatantly favored the “gay” side in his questioning.
Regardless of whether Cooper practices homosexuality, as a professional he should be completely even-handed in his treatment of this controversial moral question.
But here's the thing: If Cooper or any other media personality even raises the idea that gays are normal, deserving of equality, moral, or non-controversial parts of life's spectrum, folks like LaBarbera accuse them of bias. However, questioning anti-gay beliefs is rightful of ANY journalist, as the burden of proof is on those who are trying to stem the tide of gay acceptance! Pro-gay pundits who go on shows like Anderson's are merely asking people to accept or at least tolerate their lives and loves. Those who go on to oppose gay rights are asking a non-theocratic nation to subscribe to the one-sided Biblical belief that the millions of gay people who tangibly exist in this world are all immoral perverts. If our opponents are going to be so bold as to go on national television and encourage citizens to shun a sect of he population, they have to expect the journalist to ask them how they can justify their endeavors!
As we've seen time and again when Anderson has challenged gay issues, he has unapologetically questioned the anti-gay beliefs of our community's opponents. More often than not in situations like this, the pro-gay pundit or personality is primarily on hand to refute the attacks being lodged by the anti-gay opponent. That's because the anti-gay side -- via their support for conversion therapy, marriage bans, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, etc -- are the ones throwing the stones! If gay activists were trying to "change" evangelicals via therapy or ban Christian adoptions, then they would be the ones to receive the intense scrutiny! However, we are truly not the militant ones in this situation (no matter what the anti-gays will have you believe). We are only asking people to open their eyes, hearts, and minds to reality; realize that personal faith views cannot be used to govern; and to stop judging those who happen to have been created differently than themselves!
We can't find the specific gay parenting-centric piece to which Mr. LaBarbera is referring. However, we do know the arguments involved are:
Pro-gay: Some gay people want to have children, either through fertility procedures, surrogacy, or adoption. They should have the freedom to do so
Anti-gay: Children should only be raised by a mother and father. Gay couples should not be parents.
So you play the journalist for a second. Who deserves the harsher line of questioning here: Those who are asking to be left alone so that they can raise a family that in a way that is truly not harming anyone else, or those who are trying to prevent gay parents from starting a brood of their own? You might ask the pro-gay: "So why do you want a family?" or "What do you say to those who think children suffer in gay homes?" But with the opponent, you have no choice but to hold their feet to the fire. You simply have to ask questions like: "How can you justify telling millions of tax-paying Americans that they are non-deserving of parental rights?" or "Why do you feel that your own ideas of what constitutes of a family should be allowed to prevent others from exploring their own ideas of familial fitness?"
This goes with any journalistic situation in which one group is trying to deny another of something. The only difference is that in terms of gay issues, it is still considered by many to be a "two-sided debate" rather than "discrimination vs. decency." However, even if Mr. LaBarbera's cause was the truly righteous one (and we obviously think its not), he would still deserve a harder time selling his position. After all, it his bill of goods that wants to futz with actual human lives; our own sales pitch asks for nothing more than peace, love, and understanding.
OUT Magazine Lists 50 Most Influential ‘Homos’; ‘Outs’ CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Jodie Foster [AFT]
Technorati Tags: Anderson Cooper
Technorati Tags: Anderson Cooper
Your thoughts
Anderson did, however, on one episode dealing with gays, referred to gays as "we." This was later taken out of the transcript and changed to "them." Anderson has refused to talk about this incident other than it was a "slip."
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 11, 2007 12:59:52 PM
Yea, but that's not all that pertinent to this post. This isn't about whether or not Anderson is gay and whether or not he has to acknowledge his personal life, but how credible journalists of all orientations are right to grill those who are fighting for bias.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 11, 2007 1:04:33 PM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
