There is a school of thought floating about in my community that since the Family Research Council is an SPLC-designated hate group, the media shouldn't give its spokespeople a platform to spread the organization's views.
I understand that school of thought, but don't agree totally with it because I think that media should give FRC a platform . . . with caveats.
The first caveat is that interviewers don't act as if FRC spokespeople such as Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg are "pure as the driven snow" experts. I for one would like to see these two questioned on their ugly comments or the organization's usage of junk science studies.
The second caveat is that more often than not, FRC spokespeople not be given a free and open field to spout their lying rhetoric. I would like to see more debates between their spokespeople and spokespeople from organizations having to do with lgbtq equality.
It's my belief that in a free and open debate, FRC's so-called experts would be revealed to be empty vessels spouting nonsensical talking points having more to do with bias and homophobia than fact.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is this recent debate between Peter Sprigg and Emily Hect McGowan of the Family Equality Council. The two appeared on WUSA-9 to discuss an adoption bill being debated in the Virginia General Assembly.
Personally I think Ms. McGowan mopped up the floor with Sprigg. But what do you think:
I understand that school of thought, but don't agree totally with it because I think that media should give FRC a platform . . . with caveats.
The first caveat is that interviewers don't act as if FRC spokespeople such as Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg are "pure as the driven snow" experts. I for one would like to see these two questioned on their ugly comments or the organization's usage of junk science studies.
The second caveat is that more often than not, FRC spokespeople not be given a free and open field to spout their lying rhetoric. I would like to see more debates between their spokespeople and spokespeople from organizations having to do with lgbtq equality.
It's my belief that in a free and open debate, FRC's so-called experts would be revealed to be empty vessels spouting nonsensical talking points having more to do with bias and homophobia than fact.
A perfect example of what I am talking about is this recent debate between Peter Sprigg and Emily Hect McGowan of the Family Equality Council. The two appeared on WUSA-9 to discuss an adoption bill being debated in the Virginia General Assembly.
Personally I think Ms. McGowan mopped up the floor with Sprigg. But what do you think:
2 comments:
Emily did a great job of giving the facts about the poor way adoptions are handled in the state as well as the support from Professionals. Peter was unusually calm. He did not get red faced at all nor did he spew any junk or lies.
I have notices they are all toning it down with the lies. They just keep repeating the same things over and over. Not once did he mention the Bible or God. Just "faith based" agencies. Do you think this is some form of damage control on their part?
I agree with Ms Lincoln, Emily does a good job. The one thing I wish we could see when the pop-up box comes up telling the viewer about the person,that Sprig, also runs a SPLC listed hate organization.
Post a Comment