Comments

  1. Mike says

    Good for them! I’ve been thinking about this also for a long time. The comment of course from the Networks is that they want to show different points of view. So they believe equality is up for debate? In any event, they aren’t putting on KKK Grand Dragons or other hate group representatives…

  2. Craig says

    What if “one million moms” presented JCPenny with a petition of 20,000 signatures to get rid of Ellen as their spokesperson? Should they do it? While I hate hate groups, sometimes things seems a bit hypocritical.

  3. Craig says

    Thank you! This is the real problem – the liberal churches usually don’t say anything, so everyone assumes every church is one of the nutcases that scream through the roof tops. My own church did a huge rally once when Arizona was trying to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment (we defeated it the first time). We had 500 people packed in there, and church leaders from dozens of congregations across every imaginable faith. This is so important to stand up to these bigots like Perkins and Dobson. My straight rector just despises these people!

  4. pdxblueyesxblueyespx says

    You know, In light of the one million moms issue with JCP, Ellen isn’t propagating hate rhetoric or singling out a group or individuals giving a blessing to discriminate or hate. It’s the same but its different. It’s a difficult issue – don’t take me for a Tony Perkins lover – he’s a hateful closeted man – but it seems they’re doing the same thing to his “speech” that M1 Moms did to ellen. I don’t know…

  5. Craig says

    @ the other Craig – No, it’s not the same. It’s one thing when you demand JC Penny fire a popular lesbian as their spokesperson. That’s hate demanding the world conform to someone’s idea of bad theology and bigotry. It’s quite another thing for faith groups (and the LGBT community) to rise up and decry that hate and demand that a news outlet stop hosting someone from a hate group at every opportunity. Look, we don’t suffer through some nitwit from the KKK being invited on air every time we talk about civil rights for African Americans or commemorate MLK. This is nuts that this boob is on a liberal network all the time.

  6. Tim NC says

    Now send that same group over to the offices of CNN where Tony Perkins also appears on a regular basis. Based on what CNN has said since suspending Roland Martin for his off-air comments:

    “Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

    it appears that Perkins is no longer qualified to appear on CNN.

  7. says

    There is not really a comparison to be made between Tony and Ellen. Ellen was hired as a spokesperson for a company; she was not hired as an expert, and certainly not a hateful expert. Perkins is hired to be an “expert” and as a source of information. But there comes a point when the viewpoints of pure bigots shed no light on the news, and to give him a platform implies that his views deserve respect. They do not. They are not inviting everyone to be on their shows, so it’s not like they aren’t already selective. It’s perfectly within free speech rights to speak out against his participation. Just as it was people’s free speech right to speak out against Ellen representing JCPenny. They lost. We can be happy about that without being hypocritical in calling for Perkin’s dismissal from the airwaves.

  8. Rin says

    If you don’t ever hear how crazy some of these people are you might find them harmless. I dunno, I think its important to allow these people to be openly debated. Squelching speech that I don’t agree with seems as though my argument isn’t as good, or worse, that I don’t like dissent.

    I don’t appreciate FFA in the least, but I don’t like censorship in this context and it is as long as that organization is purported to be a “news” organization.

    It is correct and well done of religious organizations to make that demand to show that this guys a nutjob, but I would think less of a “news” organization who removes him because of pressure from people who don’t like what he has to say. Pretending that people like that don’t exist is somewhat dangerous, IMO. Better to debate them and show them up for buffoons.

    Ellen is the spokesperson for a business. The 20 or so moms who are protesting are allowed to do so…it just makes me want to buy more crap from JC Pennys because I love Ellen.

    I don’t fear the mean people of the world. I’d rather try to change them into nice people. That’s just me, though.

  9. says

    Is it censorship not to include Holocaust deniers or Fred Phelps or KKK members or terrorists as legitimate viewpoints on a news panel? Or is it a news program taking some care not to legitimize extremist thinking without labeling it as such? Part of the problem is that Perkins is rarely labeled as being a member of an extremist organization when he is invited on these programs to spew ignorance.

    Let’s be clear. Tony Perkins has plenty of opportunities to speak, as he should. He’s been a successful media whore for eons now.. But to give an extremist equivalency in one side of a “debate” over gay issues distorts journalism, and that is ethically questionable. He makes his living as a bigot, and news media outlets are enabling him.

  10. RJ says

    Let MSNBC keep Perkins but for once, I’d like for them to ask Perkins to explain why his organization has been designated a hate group by the SPLC.

    Then after he denies and spin-doctors his way through some pseudo explanation, the MSNBC should then bring on a surprise guest via satellite feed from the SPLC to give the REAL reasons. THAT would make for great tv.

  11. jason says

    I think having Tony Perkins on MSNBC is a good idea. It exposes him to the world and helps our cause. Better an idiot with his head on show than hiding behind the curtain where no-one can see.

  12. Pete n SFO says

    HATE Speech is not necessarily Free Speech. He may have the right to ‘say’ anything, but part of the deal is that what you say can be challenged.

    The danger here is that what this clown says is not being challenged & he’s being given a platform that confers credibility.

    None of the commentators actually challenge the bullshiz, allowing viewers to accept the lies as true.

    The KKK analogy above is perfect. They don’t invite a supremacist every time they talk Civil Rights; and why? The answer SHOULD be the same for this issue.

  13. Rin says

    @Ernie,

    to answer your questions: yes. Neo-Nazis in America and Fred Phelps are “news”. There are people out there like them. It is not giving them a voice anymore than allowing Lindsay Lohan or her mother to lie on Matt Lauers show gave a voice/encouraged drug use and flagrant “Me-ism”. It showed them for the lying buffoons that they were. Putting these people in front of America allows people to see that they’re not some benign church-y, take care of the poor organization. It allows people see how political and scary they truly are.

    Now, if this was on The View or some other type of couch discussion show then I would most certainly and happily exclude them

  14. says

    I have to disagree, Rin. If people like Tony Perkins (or Fred Phelps or a member of the KKK) are to be included as part of a news panel, with their view given equivalency, then I think they should be labeled as the extremists they are. The problem is Tony Perkins is still given a legitimacy he doesn’t deserve. He isn’t properly challenged because the news hosts are either ignorant or lazy.

    Just because there are people “out there like them” doesn’t mean they deserve a place at the table when having a serious discussion of civil rights. Should we fill talk panels with crazy people because they exist? Showing people as “lying buffoons” is useful once, perhaps, but repeated over and over the “lying” is given credibility. It is the so-called journalists who don’t challenge the extremist views of their guests that come off as buffoons. Reporting on the ignorant and hateful activities of the Fred Phelps of the world is legitimate news. Putting him on a discussion panel as a serious expert would not be news; it would be irresponsible. There’s a difference.

    Instead of always inviting on extremists to take the anti-gay POV, I think it would be far more useful to actually have on people with more moderate stances, ones that might provoke semi-nuanced conversations about civil rights. Perhaps then views could be challenged instead of merely affirmed. But, alas, the media is mostly interested in presenting the lowest common anti-gay denominator to provoke ratings.

    In the end, it may be a positive sign of the times that, increasingly, the only people willing to publicly take anti-gay positions are right-wing extremists and losing Republican presidential candidates. The last cry of the dinosaurs before they face extinction.

  15. GregV says

    “None of the commentators actually challenge the bullshiz, allowing viewers to accept the lies as true.”

    “The problem is Tony Perkins is still given a legitimacy he doesn’t deserve. He isn’t properly challenged because the news hosts are either ignorant or lazy.”

    @PeteInSFO and @Ernie:

    I completely agree that this is, indeed, the problem!
    There is no way that MSNBC or CNN would have the Klan’s Grand Dragon on there saying things like “The American Doctor’s Association has studies that prove that Jews and blacks are incapable of human emotions” without the host saying something like, “Whoa! That is utter nonsense, and no actual leading mainstream medical association has ever said anything of the sort.”

    But anti-gay hate representatives come on and repeatedly make statements (which have long been proven false) quoting their little closed circle of anti-gay clubs which they give scientific-sounding names like “Family Research Council” and “American College of Pediatricians” (none of which ever do any actual research).

    The host invariably seems ignorant to any background information (and has no idea, for example, that the actual leading association for pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics and that they firmly reject every bogus claim that Tony Perkins has ever made).

    I’ve also seen the AFA and FOTF citing more legitimate souces but pretending that they have said something the did not, years after the authors of the studies they cite have put out press releases stating that the anti-gay groups are propagating falsehoods and that their studies have never said any such thing.

    I just want to yell at my TV every time these hate-group spokesmen are given an UNCHALLENGED platform to say pretty much any hateful and untrue thing they want to make up.

    If these idiots have to be given a platform at all, then isn’t there anyone at MSNBC — perhaps Thomas Roberts or Rachel Maddow — who knows enough background info to be given these interviews and not let the lies slide by?

  16. GregV says

    @Craig: There is nothing hypocritical about it. These people are NOT saying that MSNBC should not feature Perkins as an “expert” just because there are 20,000 of them who don’t like him (which would be weak and nonsensical).
    They are saying that he should not be featured as an “expert” (23 times!)because of the hateful and false statements he makes.

    This is in no way remotely similar to the little group of “One Million” (sic) Moms who want a compassionate person like Ellen fired ONLY because she is gay.

  17. Rin says

    @Ernie

    then isn’t the problem that they are not being “challenged” effectively (or if at all)? From this pov, I agree with you and Gregv. I think these people should be challenged and debated. It’s easy enough to do.

    I have called into Janet Parcell’s show countless times to debate her and she ended up hanging up on me with a “thank you for your contribution”. I felt it was important to debate her in a mostly unchallenged environment, as a Christian, so that her followers would hear someone with the love of Christ and a knowledge of the Gospels (and ancient langs) present an opposing position that had more Biblical ground than hers.

    I would rather politely confront mean people than ignore them. If you act like you are too afraid to hear what they have to say it just gives them power–or if you act with rage, it gives them power.

    Besides, saying anti-gay things on MSNBC is like saying liberal or pro-gay things on Fox. It just doesn’t “stick” with the audience and is just used as a straw man to beat on to the rallying cries of the target audience.

Leave A Reply