Bombardment!
I thought I could take a day off and obviously I was wrong.
I've noticed that our friend Peter LaBarbera is engaging in a new tactic: listing new entries on his page in rapid succession. These entries are articles from so-called "pro-family" sites, which means they are biased, claiming that Christans are being persecuted.
Ususally the articles are about incidents that have not gotten much notice in the mainstream press, meaning that Peter and company can twist the articles around to suit their lies before the truth comes out.
Peter's latest entries are no different:
Sex Worker “Art” Show Hosted by College of William and Mary
UK Religious Schools Must Not Teach that Homosexuality Is Sinful or Morally Wrong
Deerfield High School Uses GLSEN’s “Lunchbox” Series — What’s in the Box?
Irish Boy, 14, Arranges Sex with Adult Men Using Gaydar
Peter received these articles from Lifesite, an anti-gay industry online publication from Canada. Other online sites are going to be repeating these articles verbatim from Lifesite and other so-called "pro-family" news sources, i.e. OneNewsNow and WorldNetDaily.
This is how lies and rumors are started. And these sites doing just like Peter, heaping all of these stories one after the other all at once so that it is almost impossible to respond.
An excellent communication tactic, but not very Christian.
4 comments:
Speaking of lies and rumors, the Americans for Truth entries you list are NOT all from LifeSite (or even from pro-Christian sources), but from (respectively):
Fox News
LifeSite
GLSEN
UK Gay.com
Notably, you neglected to cite stories they posted in the same timeframe from:
a Christian blog
Des Moines Register
Log Cabin Republicans
Associated Press
etc.
From those two lists combined, I see:
2 pro-Christian sources
3 pro-"gay" sources
3 secular sources
Hmmm -- looks like you owe Peter LaBarbera an apology for your lies in this post.
-- A fan of Americans for Truth
My entire point is that so-called "pro-family" web pages tend to take information from right winged sources that slant the story before they are picked up by the "regular" media.
I will concede that I did speak in error by saying that all of the articles came from Lifesite.
The first article I cited came from Americans for Truth. A part of the article was an excerpt from Fox News and readers are invited to look at the Fox article. But it does speak to my point because FOX is hardly an objective source. It falls in the same category as other phony Christian sources.
The second article was from Lifesite
The third article did not come from GLSEN. It is from Americans for Truth talking about a GLSEN project. GLSEN is cited as a reference but cannot be considered as the originator of the article.
The last article is from Americans for Truth. It does cite material from the UK News article but is an original creation itself due to the fact that Peter emphasizes the gay aspects of the case. He does the same in the first article I cited.
So even though I did incorrectly say that they all came from one site, the spirit of my post is intact. This is because I have found blogs that cites Americans for Truth as a source or a link when speaking of the articles I listed. So Americans For Truth is in fact one of the places I was talking about when I mentioned so-called "pro-family" sites that distort articles.
Also, you are incorrect regarding the time frame. The articles I cited showed up on March 6th. You can clearly see that by the date. Other than Peter's sad failed smackdown on Pam Spaulding, those were the only articles that were posted on March 6th.
Of course you conveniently did not define your idea of a time frame so that you can claim that anything from a day to a week to a month is the time frame you are talking about. (I can really tell that you are a fan of Peter's site. You have appropriated his tendency to be intentionally vague)
One more thing, LifeSite is not a pro-Christian source. You may say it is, but in my house (i.e. my blog), it's not.
HBHM -- If your timeframe is Mar 6th, nine articles were posted on the Americans for Truth website that day. Not everything shows up on the front page of their website, but if you get their Feedblitz you see all their articles. Your first commenter captured eight of the nine.
On the risk of sounding stubborn, I stand by my original comments.
Not everyone has the feedblitz service so when they log onto the site, the articles I described were the ones they will see.
You seem to be arguing over little semantics. I am not going to get into that but I do stand by what I said. Americans for Truth and other so-called "pro-family" sites do give slant views of current events to make it sound as if Christians are being persecuted before the "regular" media gets a handle on the issue.
They did it in the case of Repent America and tried to do it with the issue of David Parker's son - even trying to spin the lie that the child was beaten up because of his father's lawsuit with the school.
Post a Comment