Thank you for this look behind the scenes at news stories and reporting. I continue to be amazed and impressed by the courage of those who report news with integrity.
One problem with TV journalism today (and as a retired broadcaster I know there are several) is the ubiquitous coverage of what are really nothing but public relations (PR) events.
Of course, stations should cover happy celebrations such as the Pride Parades, Juneteenth Day, National Hispanic Heritage Month and the annual CelebrAsian festival.
There is only one side to each of these stories.
But the PR events to which I refer are the grand openings of restaurants, new apartment buildings, sports stadiums, the list goes on. These are solely to satisfy advertisers and meaningless to viewers.
I’ll take serious exception to the word “hate” you’ve used to describe people you simply disagree with. People who’ve looked at the science and found it lacking, found educating their children in what to see confided people to be normal and worst of all to have their concerns dismissed as “hate” by smug, not very bright or inquisitive people. “Hate” means a dark, cold and evil emotion. You use it so casually. I’m sorry I subscribed to your writing, or more precisely, typing. Please refund my money. I can get this type of thing from a ninth grade trans activist.
Michael, thanks for your feedback. I did not use the word “hate” to describe any of my opinions on this story. It is in a quote from an anchor at the television station, describing HER opinion about the memo. Journalists quote people all the time. That’s our job. It doesn’t mean we agree or disagree with the quote. Our job is to report accurately what they said.
Thanks for your reply. Clearly you stand with those who do not believe their are two sides to this issue and worse, Dave you mistake news with activism. Activism does not care about the truth, is not interested in unbiased coverage. That’s what this paper did and they should live in shame. Since you’re denying you’ve described anyone with the word “hate” maybe you could define the word in the context of this story, why there’s not another side to the story. How do you feel about those who disagree.
When I read these things I hear journalists trying to reach back to the years of the civil rights era when there really was hate and media acted for the most part admirably. Journalist see their support for trans and gay behavior as continuing the march toward equality with themselves at the forefront. Quite a picture.
It’s nothing of the sort. We didn’t need science to tell us there were/are different races. Christian ministers put themselves and their families at great risk to reveal to white Christians the evil of racism.
Now, Christians are dimwits who just do not understand dysphoria. The certainty of science was for a time held as the new faith. Turns out there is no conclusive science around gay or trans behavior. I would quote the San Francisco Chronicle who reported not long ago that there was considerable disagreement among medical people as to whether trans behavior is an aberration.
You can be a journalist and an activist only if you have the truth on your side. This Michigan people do not. They have passion and scorn. We should resist the ugly pleasures of these emotions. There is no science or higher moral truth in their action.
Once again, spot on. I know you and I both worked long hours in part because we talked to viewers/listeners.
Thank you for this look behind the scenes at news stories and reporting. I continue to be amazed and impressed by the courage of those who report news with integrity.
One problem with TV journalism today (and as a retired broadcaster I know there are several) is the ubiquitous coverage of what are really nothing but public relations (PR) events.
Of course, stations should cover happy celebrations such as the Pride Parades, Juneteenth Day, National Hispanic Heritage Month and the annual CelebrAsian festival.
There is only one side to each of these stories.
But the PR events to which I refer are the grand openings of restaurants, new apartment buildings, sports stadiums, the list goes on. These are solely to satisfy advertisers and meaningless to viewers.
However, they, too, have only one side.
I’ll take serious exception to the word “hate” you’ve used to describe people you simply disagree with. People who’ve looked at the science and found it lacking, found educating their children in what to see confided people to be normal and worst of all to have their concerns dismissed as “hate” by smug, not very bright or inquisitive people. “Hate” means a dark, cold and evil emotion. You use it so casually. I’m sorry I subscribed to your writing, or more precisely, typing. Please refund my money. I can get this type of thing from a ninth grade trans activist.
Michael, thanks for your feedback. I did not use the word “hate” to describe any of my opinions on this story. It is in a quote from an anchor at the television station, describing HER opinion about the memo. Journalists quote people all the time. That’s our job. It doesn’t mean we agree or disagree with the quote. Our job is to report accurately what they said.
Thanks for your reply. Clearly you stand with those who do not believe their are two sides to this issue and worse, Dave you mistake news with activism. Activism does not care about the truth, is not interested in unbiased coverage. That’s what this paper did and they should live in shame. Since you’re denying you’ve described anyone with the word “hate” maybe you could define the word in the context of this story, why there’s not another side to the story. How do you feel about those who disagree.
When I read these things I hear journalists trying to reach back to the years of the civil rights era when there really was hate and media acted for the most part admirably. Journalist see their support for trans and gay behavior as continuing the march toward equality with themselves at the forefront. Quite a picture.
It’s nothing of the sort. We didn’t need science to tell us there were/are different races. Christian ministers put themselves and their families at great risk to reveal to white Christians the evil of racism.
Now, Christians are dimwits who just do not understand dysphoria. The certainty of science was for a time held as the new faith. Turns out there is no conclusive science around gay or trans behavior. I would quote the San Francisco Chronicle who reported not long ago that there was considerable disagreement among medical people as to whether trans behavior is an aberration.
You can be a journalist and an activist only if you have the truth on your side. This Michigan people do not. They have passion and scorn. We should resist the ugly pleasures of these emotions. There is no science or higher moral truth in their action.
And it's not just Pride month, sadly. Thanks for this.