Topic: WorldNetDaily
How deep does WorldNetDaily's hatred of gays go? Just read Joseph Farah's June 25 column.
He begins by asking, "Have you ever opened up your local newspaper and wondered why there is so much coverage of homosexuals and issues of concern to homosexuals? Have you ever wondered why coverage of homosexuals and their cause is so universally positive?" He offers no evidence that this is the case; rather, he appears to be engaging in the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy of assuming that any coverage of gays that is not explicitly negative is positive.
He goes on to assert that newsrooms have been "invaded and taken over by radical activists with a perverse and extreme agenda" that supports "homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy" -- such as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association -- and "ensure favorable coverage of homosexuals and their political agenda." Farah adds:
At previous national conferences, it has been suggested by participants that journalists should not even bother seeking other points of view on homosexuals' issues and stories. It has been suggested that differing points of view should not even be permitted to be aired by their news organizations.
In 2000, CBS correspondent and NLJGA member Jeffrey Kofman made the point: "The argument (is): Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, blacks, et cetera?"
Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director for the NBC New York City affiliate WNBC, added: "I agree with him. I don't see why we would seek out ... the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view."
Kofman rejoined: "All of us have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes perspectives on gay issues that include people who just simply are intolerant and perhaps not qualified as well."
But as we've detailed, Farah has no problem with refusing to report "other points of view on homosexuals' issues and stories" his own website. Of course, as we've detailed, it's reversed -- WND repeatedly engages in misleading and even false right-wing attacks on gays while never giving gays and their advocates an opportunity to respond to them. As opposed to Farah's claim that "lamestream media" of gays is "universally positive," WND's coverage of gay issues is universally negative.
And as we've also detailed, Farah is selective about the kind of things that warrant telling both sides of the story. In his book "Stop the Presses!" Farah wrote, "But fundamentally, isn't real journalism about a search for the truth? Isn't that a higher calling than 'fair and balanced'?" Indeed, Farah's "truth" does not compel him to tell his readers all relevant information -- only that which advances his brand of right-wing Christianity.
Farah also rails against journalistic conflicts of interest with the statement, "Hey, I don't care if you sleep with elephants, just don't cover the circus." It should be no surprise that Farah's own website fails that test as well; WND has a long history of refusing to disclose the personal and business interests it has in the people and stories it covers.
Farah is most disingenuous in his bashing of "activists masquerading as journalists" -- as if WND is not an advocacy journalism site. Farah concludes that "activists within the media" are "mapping a route to their own self-destruction and disfranchisement," adding, "In my humble opinion, it couldn't happen to a more arrogant bunch of fascist mind-control freaks." Is he saying that journalists who don't attack gays are arrogant and fascist? It appears so.
But Farah is also an "activist within the media" who thinks certain points of view should not be reported. Guess that makes him an arrogant, fascist mind-control freak too.
