For years I have been irked by the news media's unwillingness or inability to ask intelligent and probing follow-up questions when politicians, political preachers or other newsmakers make woefully ignorant or mendacious statements about gays.
If they refer to being gay as a choice, newspeople could ask, "Do you mean to say that feeling sexual desire for a man or a woman is a choice between equally attractive options?" or "Did you personally feel sexual desire for people of the same sex as strongly as you did for people of the opposite sex?" or 'When did you decide to feel sexual desire for women rather than men? Was that hard to decide?"
Or when know-nothings like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blame natural disasters or enemy attacks on gays and lesbians (or abortionists or feminists), why don't newspeople ask if it is not instead God's judgment on preachers who distort God's message of love for the world? Or ask if the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia was caused by homosexuals (etc.) in that region? Or when something good happens, does that indicate God's approval of homosexuals (etc.)?
There are several ways to probe homophobic statements. A newsperson could ask for clarification of exactly how something could be true, or ask why the newsmaker rejects alternative possibilities, or cite a recognized authority in disagreement, or pose counter-examples. Newsmen usually know in advance what a prominent person will say on an issue, so you would think that part of their preparation would be to have follow-up questions on hand. Apparently not.
Several recent examples of idiocy were on display at the early-June New Hampshire forum for Republican presidential aspirants. Asked about the military's exclusionary "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said, "This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment in the middle of a war." And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who knows better) said, "This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this one."
But a prepared questioner could have asked, "So in other words you would support allowing openly gay soldiers in time of peace?" Or the questioner could have asked, "But as you doubtless know, discharges of gay soldiers traditionally go down rather than up during times of war. Doesn't that suggest that the military wants all the manpower it can get during wartime?"
Or he could have asked, "But what is your evidence that this is any sort of social experiment? Did not the British military integrate openly gay soldiers in 2000? I have here a New York Times story datelined May 20 citing the British Ministry of Defense position that 'none of its fears--about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness--have come to pass.' Why do you think it would be different in the U.S.?"
Or he could have asked, "But as you are no doubt aware former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili wrote a New York Times op-ed earlier this year reversing his previous anti-gay position and advocating the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian soldiers. Is your perception of the military's needs more accurate than his?" Or he could more aggressively have asked, "To what extent is your position, like that of Gen. Peter Pace, based on a belief that homosexuality is immoral?"
According to the New York Times, several Republican candidates also said the current policy was "working well"? A smart questioner could have asked for a definition of "working well." Does the separation of more than 50 gay Arabic translators mean the policy is "working well? Does the refusal to accept people with needed language skills, or gay computer experts, or gay doctors and nurses mean the policy is "working well"?
Or the questioner could have pointed out that Southerners could claim that racial segregation in the military before 1948 "worked well" in the sense that it "worked" despite the obvious injustice and stigmatization involved. "Working well" is hardly a guarantee that something is good. And it evades the obvious possibility that something else could work better. After all, steam engines "worked well." So did rotary dial telephones. So did whale oil lamps.
And where in all this is GLAAD? Remember GLAAD--The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? If news reporters cannot think of follow-up questions, why isn't GLAAD preparing a "Guide to Follow-Up Questions" on gay marriage, gay military access, gay adoption and foster care, etc.? They could distribute such a guide to newspeople, essentially doing their preparation for them. But GLAAD just doesn't seem interested. Its staff is probably too busy arranging their next gala awards banquet for television and movie stars.
28 Comments for “Failure to Follow Up”
posted by quo on
The way that Paul Varnell suggests that media people respond to politicians who claim that homosexuality is a choice is foolish. Consider those three questions:
“Do you mean to say that feeling sexual desire for a man or a woman is a choice between equally attractive options?” Does anyone other than Paul Varnell consider that a sensible response? It’s nothing but a way of intimidating and insulting politicians by putting words in their mouths, and no newsperson with any dignity would do it. Since the large majority of people evidently choose heterosexuality, who in their right mind would think that heterosexuality and homosexuality were equally attractive options?
“Did you personally feel sexual desire for people of the same sex as strongly as you did for people of the opposite sex?” That would be an irrelevant and stupid response, and once again it’s really nothing but a form of personal abuse. Since the politicians to whom Varnell proposes people ask that ended up heterosexual, it should be obvious that the answer is no.
and finally, ‘When did you decide to feel sexual desire for women rather than men? Was that hard to decide?” The point of this question seems to be to create embarrassment. Any politician to whom it was asked could quite rightly reply that it was intrusive and beside the point.
Anyone in the media who asked any of those three questions would look like an obnoxious, juvenile asshole – is that really how Paul Varnell wants supporters of gay rights to look?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Nonsense quo. Politicians imply all these things about gay people with their stances. If they thing, and obviously they claim to, that gays could just as easily choose to be heterosexual, that gays can be just as attracted to the opposite sex, that gays decided to be attracted to the same sex, then its perfectly valid, and important, to ask if the same was true of them, and if it wasn’t, why on earth they would suggest such inanity is true of gays.
posted by Snark on
“…and no newsperson with any dignity would do it.”
I wasn’t aware that reporters were known for their dignity. Perhaps Quo is imagining some other time or place.
posted by Snark, Redux on
However, I agree that there are much better questions that reporters could ask of newsmakers in these circumstances.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t suppose there’s anything wrong with asking a politician who’s clearly made a ridiculous assumption a question that makes this ridiculousness obvious.
“Did YOU choose to be straight?” is actually a very pointed and powerful question. Not “WOULD you have chosen to be straight if you’d been given the choice,” but “DID you choose it?”
If they pretend not to understand the difference between “would” and “did,” then a basic lesson in grammar may be in order, along with the basic appeal to common sense.
posted by quo on
Lori, the idea that homosexuality is a choice may or may not be ridiculous, but the questions Paul Varnell suggests be asked are indisputably ridiculous, because all of them suppose that the homosexuality-as-choice theory has consequences that it doesn’t have. Plus they’re just pointlessly offensive.
posted by Brian Miller on
they’re just pointlessly offensive.
Then again, so are the Republican nominee candidates.
Mitt Romney flip-flopped on so many issues (including gays in the military) that he’d steal John Kerry’s medal for that title in a heartbeat.
Rudy Guiliani? A pathetic, unethical control freak who changes his position with the wind in order to win votes — anything from flouncing around in drag to win the NYC gay vote to rediscovering his inner religious-conservative anti-gay neocon for the GOP primary voter.
McCain? Please.
The others barely dignify a mention — perhaps a brief chuckle at Ron Paul’s efforts to redefine “libertarian” as “anti-freedom control freak who favors states’ ‘rights’ to abuse the citizenry and who is opposed to basic freedoms in economics and movement of people.”
If the Republican nominees get ridiculous questions in response to their ridiculous answers, it’s only because they’re so bloody ridiculous themselves.
posted by quo on
‘If the Republican nominees get ridiculous questions in response to their ridiculous answers, it’s only because they’re so bloody ridiculous themselves.’ No, I think that would be because gay-friendly journalists insist on behaving like a bunch of jerks.
posted by LeBain on
Good idea, but just a few comments:
1. Varnell assumes journalists are intelligent. That’s a big stretch as televsion’s news-as-entertainment and the struggling newspaper industry are finding out.
2. Why the focus on GLAAD? Where are HRC, NGLTF, and Log Cabin on this?
posted by Brian Miller on
because gay-friendly journalists insist on behaving like a bunch of jerks
Republican presidential candidates complaining that other people are being loudmouthed jerks are a bit like Carrot-Top complaining that other people are loud, obnoxious and unattractive.
Since each of the top-tier candidates is a loudmouthed and proudly bigoted bully, each can hardly complain that other people are “bullying” him.
posted by Brian Miller on
Where are HRC, NGLTF, and Log Cabin on this?
HRC: Busy issuing Democratic Party press releases.
NGLTF: Busy lobbying for “universal health care,” “union rights” and other about-as-far-from-gay-as-possible issues.
Log Cabin: Are they even still in business?
posted by Tom Chatt on
It’s not just the Republicans who need better follow-up. I was delighted to see at the recent Democratic debate that all of the candidates were advocating repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I just wish someone had asked the several sitting Senators (especially Hillary, who’s on the Armed Services Committee), “So, since you’re currently in a position to do something about that, when are you going to? There’s already legislation introduced in the House. Will you sponsor the companion bill in the Senate?”
posted by Mike on
@Quo, SNark: Could we have some suggestions for “better” questions that could be asked?
posted by Craig2 on
As an LGBT journalist of many years standing, I’m strongly inclined to agree with you.
One does need to monitor Christian Right websites on a regular basis. Moreover, if one also has access to archived publications from fundamentalist and conservative Catholic groups
in one’s national and state library archival sections, some
useful historical and contextual
detective work can often be done.
I’ve practiced this principle with the New Zealand Christian Right for many years. Believe me, it works.
Bravo on your strategic insight, IGF.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by quo on
Mike,
I doubt that politicians who oppose gay rights should be asked any questions that are intended to get them to change their views. This seems pointless to me.
posted by Bob on
Quo,
The point is not to change the politicians’ views–it is to expose their statements as illogical, unscientific, or whatever.
posted by Lori Heine on
“The point is not to change the politicians’ views–it is to expose their statements as illogical, unscientific, or whatever.”
Absolutely. Certainly the citizenry must still have some role in helping our spinmeister politicians to shape public discourse in this country. If not, then it has somehow — without my having been advised of it — become a tyranny.
When politicians attempt to manipulate public opinion on the basis of untruths, we certainly have both the right and the duty to challenge them on it.
posted by quo on
Bob, I don’t think that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is necessarily illogical and unscientific. What, if any, element of choice is involved in becoming homosexual is a complex and debatable issue – I object to Varnell’s proposed questions because they are designed to short circuit serious discussion. This can’t benefit gay people in the long run.
posted by Brian Miller on
I just wish someone had asked the several sitting Senators (especially Hillary, who’s on the Armed Services Committee), “So, since you’re currently in a position to do something about that, when are you going to? There’s already legislation introduced in the House. Will you sponsor the companion bill in the Senate?”
You’ll be waiting a long time. Every “debate” is a carefully managed staged artifice designed to look spontaneous.
All participants and questions are carefully pre-screened in both primary and major presidential elections by every participant and his/her party. Unauthorized participants are arrested, as Michael Badnarik and David Cobb discovered in 2004 when they went to serve the Bush and Kerry campaigns with a federal court injunction instructing them to open up the debates to all national candidates. (That court order was ignored — both Bush and Kerry were in contempt of court!)
If any person stands up and asks a question that is not an approved, pre-screened question, his/her microphone is immediately shut off and he/she is escorted out of the hall.
So unfortunately, there will never be an opportunity to ask such a tough question within a debate. So much for
“democracy.”
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t think that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is necessarily illogical and unscientific.
It is, however, heterosexist.
For instance, I happen to think that heterosexuality is chosen and that everyone is actually born gay. Heterosexuality is, therefore, unnatural. I know this based on my personal experience — and shouldn’t have to explain this or have it challenged in a public form.
I object to Varnell’s proposed questions because they are designed to short circuit serious discussion
They don’t really need serious discussion on this issue. Heterosexuality is a choice, and I fail to understand why the government should reward sexual choices!
Tongue firmly in cheek, but point clearly made. 🙂
posted by quo on
Brian, labelling views you don’t like “heterosexist”, as though that somehow disproved them, is another way of trying to prevent serious consideration of complex psychological issues.
posted by Brian Miller on
labelling views you don’t like “heterosexist”
It’s not a question of “labelling” (sic) views I don’t like — it’s rather a statement of fact.
another way of trying to prevent serious consideration of complex psychological issues
I suspect the last consideration of “complex psychological issues” that a Republican had was when George P. Bush spent 15 minutes in a drunken stupor trying to figure out how to get into the pants of a drunken sorority sister.
posted by quo on
‘I suspect the last consideration of “complex psychological issues” that a Republican had was when George P. Bush spent 15 minutes in a drunken stupor trying to figure out how to get into the pants of a drunken sorority sister.’ I suspect that Republicans are not the only ones whose consideration of psychological complexity is on this level.
posted by Brian Miller on
I suspect that Republicans are not the only ones whose consideration of psychological complexity is on this level.
Oh, no doubt. However, calls demanding that we allow Republicans to “seriously consider complex psychological issues” when they’re quite incapable of doing so are rather useless, you must admit.
posted by Paul K on
One idea not mentioned yet: that the reporter (or media outlet) agrees with the anti-gay comments and wants to promote them. I can’t attribute the way the media doesn’t challenge Bush to simple reporter laziness.
posted by Brian Miller on
Good point, Paul K.
Outright Libertarians marched in Pride and had a larger contingent than many of the leftist groups who were present — guess who got media spotlights from individual “reporters” though?
Not a huge deal, it’s to be expected, but reporter bias shines through in what they choose to cover (or not cover), as well as which questions they ask of people.
posted by Alp Sarioglu on
I loved this article.
posted by MMMM on
Great article.