Is Trump Abusing Power to Retaliate Against the Media?

If one has studied the rise of Hitler and the Nazi regime in Germany in the late 1920's and early 1930's one knows that among Hitler's first acts were efforts to silence the independent news media which was reporting the truth about the Führer.  A free and independent press is one of the most important safeguards against tyranny - something well know to the Founding Fathers and why they enshired freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.   Now, troubling reports are coming out on how the Trump Department of Justice - perhaps better called the Department of Injustice under Jeff Sessions - is seemingly retaliating against CNN by blocking a merger involving that channel's parent company.  He has likewise been sniping at the parent of the Washington Post, another news outlet that has put publishing the true ahead of loyalty to Der Trumpenführer.   Many, including members of Congress and in the media, find this effort by Trump/Pence/Sessions alarming.  A piece in Politico looks at this apparent attempt to silence the independent press.   Here are excerpts:

Even critics of AT&T’s proposed mega-merger with Time Warner expressed alarm Wednesday at allegations that President Donald Trump's Justice Department is intervening in the deal for political reasons — namely his oft-expressed complaints about CNN.

"Any indication that this administration is using its power to weaken media organizations it doesn’t like would be a profoundly disturbing development," Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said, after POLITICO and other news outlets reported that the DOJ had been pressing the companies to unload the Time Warner-owned news network.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told POLITICO that the DOJ's reported actions "merit investigation," and that senators should ask Attorney General Jeff Sessions about it next week.

"Presidential power must be used wisely and fairly. I don’t know the details here but this is worth investigating," Schatz tweeted earlier in the day. He added: "The burden of proof is on the Justice Department to establish that there is no political interference in their Antitrust Division."

Sources familiar with the proposed merger told POLITICO that the DOJ issued an ultimatum to the companies Monday — that they either sell Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting, which includes CNN as well as networks like TBS and TNT, or shed satellite television provider DirecTV. The sources said it's clear the real sticking point for the government is CNN, whose coverage of the administration has become a frequent target of Trump's anger.

The two sides appear to be preparing for a court battle should DOJ reject the merger.

The DOJ officials offered no details about what aspects of the deal concern them. But they said simply selling off CNN would not necessarily solve the harm to the public.

Trump, who has repeatedly derided CNN's coverage of his administration as "fake news," has loomed over the deal since the companies announced it a little over a year ago.

But Trump's contempt for CNN's coverage of his presidency — and his other media-bashing — is casting a shadow over the government's review. Trump has often expressed a desire to punish media outlets whose coverage he deems unfair, promising on the campaign trail to “open up” the libel laws and suggesting in October that NBC News' nonexistent broadcast license should be revoked.
 Late Wednesday, Trump administration officials denied any White House interference in the DOJ's review of the AT&T-Time Warner deal.
 Politics should play no role in these types of decisions, free-speech advocates said Wednesday.

“While there are plenty of good reasons to oppose AT&T’s Time Warner takeover, punishing CNN for trying to hold this administration accountable isn’t one of them," said Craig Aaron, president of liberal group Free Press, which opposes the AT&T-Time Warner deal. "No matter where you come down on this merger, everyone should agree that the government shouldn’t base antitrust decisions or FCC rulings on whether it likes a newsroom’s coverage." 

Be very, very afraid.

CNN Declines to Air White House Press Conference Live

Given Trump/Der Fuhrer and his administrations clear indications that lying -or "alternate facts per Kellyanne "Goebbels" Conway - will be the new norm, the media needs to adjust how it operates so as to insure that they are not complicit in spreading falsehoods.  CNN may have hit upon how to proceed going forward: never broadcast press conferences or Trump speeches live.  Instead, record them, fact check them, and if they are full of lies, simply do not broadcast them. Go instead with an edited version that deletes the lies although that could mean not airing the pieces at all.  Variety looks at what CC did and how the press needs to change its mode of operating when confronted with a pathological liar and his propaganda agents.  Here are excerpts:   

CNN this evening declined to air live a press conference with the nation’s new White House Press Secretary, pointing to a growing rift between the embryonic Trump administration and the press corps that covers it and undermining the credibility of Sean Spicer, a longtime Republican operative who has become the new spokesman for President Donald Trump.

Producers at the cable-news outlet, owned by Time Warner, this evening decided to see what was said at the press event, according to a person familiar with the network, then play relevant parts as deemed necessary. Despite a robust amount of evidence to the contrary, Spicer during the conference insisted that Trump’s inauguration Friday drew “the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period.” The statement is a deliberate falsehood: TV ratings data issued Saturday by Nielsen show that fewer people watched Trump’s swearing-in than President Obama’s inauguration in 2009. What’s more, photos of Friday’s crowds showed that a smaller number of people had come out to Washington, D.C.’s Mall to take part. Data from the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority also suggested fewer people were attending the inauguration than in years past.

Now, at a time when TV-news outlets have seen their ratings thrive thanks coverage of the colorful and fiery politician, CNN’s decision could be a momentous one: Trump and his representatives have been known to obfuscate and lie. CNN’s refusal to take the live feed suggests executives there are reluctant to put false statements on air, and, what’s more, do not think the new White House press representative is entirely credible.

“CNN’s decision to not air the press conference live illustrates a recognition that the role of the press must be different under Trump. When the White House holds press briefings to promote demonstrably false information and refuses to take questions, then press ‘access’ becomes meaningless at best and complicit at worst,” said Danna Young, an associate professor at the University of Delaware who studies politics and the media. “Democracy works best when journalists have access to the executive branch, of course. But that holds true if and only if that access leads to verifiable, accurate information. The decision on behalf of CNN to wait and verify before airing it live suggests that the media are adapting quickly to this new era.”

CNN has not established a policy about airing White House press conferences live, the person familiar with the matter said, preferring instead to make editorial decisions as circumstances demand. And it was not immediately clear Saturday evening whether its decision might prompt other news outlets to do the same. Spokespersons for CBS News, NBC News and MSNBC were not able to offer an immediate response. 

Trump's War on the Media and Reality

One of the first things that would be dictators do is to discredit and undermine the free press since it represents the greatest threat to their quest for power.  The ultimate goal is to eventually control the press and change reality in the minds of the public to fit the fake reality that the dictator wants to impose.  Frighteningly, Donald Trump has already begun this process as demonstrated by his repeated lies, constant attacks on any portions of the media not pumping out his propaganda and lies. One can only hope that while there is still time, the media will ferret out enough truth and facts to destroy Trump before he destroys American democracy.  Indeed, as Der Fuhrer increasingly shows himself as a threat to world order, perhaps allied nation intelligence services will find and release bombshell information that will force even traitorous and power mad Republicans to flee Trump. A piece in Vanity Fair looks at Trump's war on the media.  Here are highlights:

So, who won this week? So far, Donald Trump. During a press conference, his first since winning the election, he sounded entirely unruffled by BuzzFeed’s disclosure of unverified opposition research alleging ties between himself and Russia. Trump said that he was always hyper-aware of surveillance when he was traveling abroad and suggested that he would never do something as stupid as hiring local prostitutes to relieve themselves on the bed of a Moscow hotel suite—and he said it in a way that managed to make the charge look silly, as indeed it probably is. He openly insulted BuzzFeed as a “failing pile of garbage” and insulted CNN as a purveyor of “fake news,” passing over its reporter Jim Acosta and telling him to be quiet when Acosta kept talking anyway. Trump also used the news of the hour to take attention off of what appeared to be inadequate measures to protect against conflicts of interest between his business and his new day job.

Trump is now as powerful as ever, and if you want to topple him, you’d better have your army in order. This is a good lesson and a bad lesson. It’s good because, if a truly scandalous story emerges, journalists have to do it properly. It’s bad because it feeds into what seems to be a tacit assumption that the criterion for journalism in the Trump administration will be its power to shake the foundations of the presidency.

Journalists also learned to withhold documents from the public unless the claims within them have been thoroughly investigated. This, again, is both a good lesson and bad lesson. It’s a good lesson, because nothing good can come of reputable publications trafficking in rumor and gossip as if they’re In Touch. But it’s a bad one, too, because journalists are also way too willing to hide their work, as if readers must be shielded from the bright light of primary sources. When BuzzFeed disclosed the document in full, ordinary readers got to see an ill-kept secret that had been circulating all through the halls of journalism and government. Regular Americans at this point deserved to see it, too, and they’re probably better off for it, even if BuzzFeed isn’t. Better lesson: when you make a call to disclose the raw evidence, try to give a detailed annotation on what we know and don’t, and don’t just toss out a facile line about doing it so that “Americans can make up their own minds about [the] allegations.”

All of this has been distracting from more important troubles, like Trump’s conflicts of interest or his more dubious nominees. Mike Pompeo is a genuinely disconcerting nominee for heading up the C.I.A., far too inclined, it seems, to overestimate threats. Ben Carson is almost certain to be bad news at H.U.D., not because of his convictions, but because of his lack of knowledge.

We learned, too, that holding Trump accountable will be very, very hard, and the blame for that rests with far more than just Trump. Mainstream journalists have been asking why they’ve been losing credibility with the public, often blaming right-wing media and fake news. Rarely considered is the possibility that we’ve lost the trust of readers because we’re not trustworthy. . . . Instead, the issue is just that the media increasingly sees only what it wants to see. . . . Much of the work of mainstream watchdogging will depend on buy-in from the right if it’s going to matter. That’s just the way of it.

Finally, we learned this week that the intelligence community may well be going to war with our incoming president. . . . . For the moment, our press outlets and our intelligence agencies seem to be mounting nothing organized, just running stray sorties. But if something more coordinated emerges, with the intelligence world joining forces with reporters to mount a serious effort to remove Trump from power, things could very ugly. It would also be very dangerous.

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose GOP "Bathroom Bills"

Time and time again I have noted my shock that today's GOP continues to chase after a shrinking right wing white voter pool even as poll after pool suggests that the majority of voters do not support what the GOP/Christofascists are peddling.  With all Hell breaking loose around North Carolina's HB2 which was passed by the North Carolina GOP to supposedly rally North Carolina Christofascists to the voting booths in November, CNN commissioned a poll that found that nearly 3 out of 5 Americans oppose the GOP's "bathroom bills" and anti-LGBT agenda.  As I have noted before, the modern day Pharisees and political whores who now control the GOP have no long term plan for the Party's survival.  Perhaps it is a God send that Donald Trump has appeared on the scene to accelerate the death of the GOP and perhaps minimize the death throes.  Here are highlights from The Advocate on the CNN poll findings:

Most Americans support LGBT rights in some measure and oppose anti-transgender bathroom laws, such as the one passed in North Carolina, according to a poll released by CNN on Monday.

The survey found 57 percent of respondents were against laws which would require transgender people to use bathrooms that did not correspond with their gender identity. A law passed in North Carolina in March requires transgender people to use bathrooms matching the gender listed on their birth certificates, regardless of gender identity. Only 38 percent said of those polled by CNN they support such legislation.

Additionally, strong opposition outweighed strong support for these anti-LGBT laws, with 39 percent strongly opposed to 25 percent strongly supporting such efforts. Democrats and independents were more likely to oppose the transphobic laws than Republicans, but Republicans were evenly split on the matter, according to the survey.

About 75 percent of respondents favored laws guaranteeing equal protection for transgender people in jobs, housing, and public accommodations, while 80 percent were in favor of such protections for gay and lesbian people. 

I truly believe that today's GOP and its Christofascist supporters make the Pharisees of the Bible look like nice and decent people in comparison.

Don Lemon Slams CNN's "Homophobic" Coverage of Virginia Shooting

As previously noted in prior posts, the far right is having orgasms over the fact that Virginia shooter, Vester Falangan was gay.  Adding to their thrill and titillation is the fact that Flanagan apparently had two gay porn domain names registered in his name.  None of this, of course, has anything to do with Flanagan's top reason for his killing spree: racism and a delusional response to Dylann Root's effort to start a race war through the murder of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.  Sadly, now some other mainstream media outlets have jumped on the gay website connection (ignoring, of course the reality that the (i) vast majority of porn sites are for heterosexual porn, and (ii) the highest per capita viewership is among Bible Belt evangelicals) to drum up more sensation and, in the process, reinforce the societal idea that there is something wrong or perverted about being gay.   As Pink News reports, CNN anchor Don Lemon had enough of the bigotry and let loose at his own network.  Here are story highlights:

This week WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward were shot and killed during a live TV news report on Wednesday morning in Virginia. Inexplicably, CNN appeared to suggest a link between suspect Vester Flanagan’s (pseudonym Bryce Williams) ownership of legal gay porn sites.

CNN host Don Lemon has since criticised the “gay shaming” reports by his network, whilst condemning the tragedy.

In a video posted by Media Matters he says: “The gay porn site thing, to me, I don’t really see the relevance of it.

“If it’s not illegal, then what’s wrong with him owning gay porn sites or straight porn sites or as a journalist forming a media company like Dan Abrams did? I don’t see anything wrong with it. He’s an entrepreneur, he’s an American — as long as it’s two consenting adults, I don’t see what difference it makes.”

He went on to say: “I don’t want to gay-shame him. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. I’m sure he probably faced some discrimination, as we all do, and that’s horrible. But it still does not condone his actions two days ago.”

Despite CNN’s coverage never explicitly drawing a link between the gay porn sites and the shooting, correspondent Drew Griffin called the revelation “just another disturbing twist” in the incident.

Kudos to Lemon (in the interest of disclosure, we are Facebook friends)! CNN has never been my preferred news outlet and now, I will watch it even less.

63% of Americans Say Same Sex Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Yet another poll underscores the fact that the Christofascists are losing the war over marriage equality.  A CNN poll that looked at a number of issues, including Barack Obama's approval levels and support for the Affordable Health Care Act , found the following:

63% of Americans say that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by the law as valid. That's up from 49% in August 2010. Over that time, the share who see marriage as a constitutional right has climbed 15 points among Republicans to 42% and 19 points among Democrats to 75%.

These findings coupled with the growing belief even among Republicans that opposition to same sex marriage is NOT acceptable in a GOP presidential candidate ought to be striking terror in the hearts of anti-gay Christofascist who have been making a lucrative living peddling anti-gay hate and opposition to marriage equality.   I can almost hear the shrieking and whining in the offices of Family Research Council, the American family Association, and the National organization for Marriage.  God forbid, these folks may yet have to find real jobs.

Is thr Main Stream Media Waking Up to the Idiocy of Hosting Hate Group Leaders?

In the past I have lamented that all too often main stream media news outlets - CNN and MSNBC have been particularly guilty - have provided platforms for hate group leaders to spew anti-gay venom without ever (i) challenging the anti-gay rants and/or (ii) revealing to viewers the other ugly baggage that such individuals carry with them.  A perfect case in point in the past has been Tony Perkins, a man who is virulently anti-gay, has white supremacist ties and who constantly cites thoroughly discredited "research" to support his anti-gay lies.   New analysis by Media Matters suggests that news outlets that want to be considered legitimate have of late been giving Perkins the cold shoulder.   Here are highlights:

Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins has all but ceased to appear as a guest on CNN and MSNBC. It's a dramatic change for the anti-gay hate group leader, whose constant appearances on cable news during the 2012 GOP primary cycle drew criticism from progressive faith groups.

Since becoming president of the Family Research Council in 2003, Perkins has used his position as a leader among social conservatives to command significant media attention. FRC hosts the annual Values Voters Summit, making Perkins an easy choice for networks looking for a prominent voice to comment on social conservatism and GOP politics.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled FRC an anti-gay "hate group," citing the organization's propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people.

That label, unfortunately, didn't stop cable news networks from continuing to invite Perkins on national television on behalf of social conservatives. During the 2012 Republican presidential primary season, Perkins appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News a total of 56 times. MSNBC was particularly friendly to Perkins, with Hardball host Chris Matthews praising Perkins as an "honest conservative" who always tried "to find the truth" during a November 2011 interview:

Perkins' platform on cable news didn't sit well with audiences familiar with his long and sordid history of bigoted anti-LGBT rhetoric.  Faithful America, a progressive Christian group dedicated to "reclaiming Christianity from the religious right," launched a petition in February 2012 asking the network to stop inviting Perkins on air. The petition garnered 20,000 signatures, which were delivered to MSNBC's headquarters.

Perkins' platform at MSNBC created an awkward situation for Hardball host Chris Matthews. At a March 2012 book event, Matthews was asked about his willingness to invite Perkins on his show and admitted that his critics "may be right." At a book signing a few weeks later, Matthews told Faithful America members that the group had "a good argument" for no longer hosting Perkins." Perkins did appear on Hardball once more, in a joint appearance with gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA. But rather than offer the warm welcome Perkins had come to expect, Matthews grilled Perkins on his anti-LGBT extremism.

In the summer of 2013, Faithful America launched a similar petition targeting CNN after the network hosted Perkins to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The petition urged CNN not to let Perkins "speak on behalf of America's Christians" and quickly gathered more than 32,000 signatures.

A new Equality Matters analysis finds that both MSNBC and CNN have largely ended their practice of hosting Perkins in the months since the end of the 2012 GOP primary.  . . . . Perkins' appearances on CNN have steadily declined in the last year, and he hasn't been on the network since February: At Fox News, on the other hand, Perkins' appearances have held steady and actually increased in the past year. 

While Perkins has virtually disappeared from MSNBC and CNN,  FRC's anti-LGBT bigotry and misinformation hasn't entirely faded from the airwaves. In February, CNN's Crossfire hosted FRC senior fellow Peter Sprigg to champion an Arizona bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse services to LGBT people. In May, the network turned to the FRC's Ken Blackwell for his thoughts on gay NFL player Michael Sam.

CNN's willingness to host lesser-known FRC figures shows much work remains to keep anti-gay extremists off of cable news. But if CNN and MSNBC have indeed decided to stop hosting Perkins, that's undoubtedly a major step in the right direction.

It should come as no surprise that Fox News, a/k/a Faux News, continues to air Perkins' message of hate and discrimination.  Other, legitimate networks continue to be pressured to put Perkins and his fellow hate merchants in a pariah category that drives them from the airwaves. 

The Iraq That Dick Cheney Actually Left Behind

It continues to drive me crazy that much of the mainstream media continues to give Dick Cheney a platform to spew lies and fantasy stories of what should be done in Iraq.  As the main architect of America's most disastrous foreign policy since at least Vietnam, Cheney has been wrong on everything and has caused the nation to throw away thousands of young American lives and to bankrupt the nation.  Why does anyone sane listen to the man and why does anyone responsible let him have a microphone?  Think Progress reports on the Iraq that Bush/Cheney really left us as opposed to the delusional image that Cheney, a war criminal in may view, tries to paint.  Here are excerpts:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CNN on Tuesday, once more claiming that the Iraq his administration left behind was a “very stable” one. In actuality, on the waning days of the Bush administration, Iraq was still a highly violent place, with car bombs exploding and government officials targeted.

“I think when we left office, we had in Iraq a very stable situation,” Cheney told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “We’d put together a program with a surge the a decision the president made and by the time we left office, Iraq was in good shape.”

Contrary to his claims, the Iraq that Cheney and the rest of the administration parted with was not one that was in good shape. During the Iraq War, McClatchy’s Washington Bureau ran a daily round-up of violence that had taken place in the country. While stressing that it was not a comprehensive list, on January 18, 2009 — two days before the Obama administration took office — at least six roadside bombs were detonated in Iraq, five in Baghdad and another in Mosul. Nineteen people were wounded in those explosions.

Those bombs weren’t the only violence in the country that day. A magnetic bomb planted under a car in Basra exploded, wounding the prison employee driving. Three mortar shells hit the Jamiaa neighborhood of Baghdad. And an Iraqi politician was assassinated: “A suicide bomber targeted the former major general Hassan Zaidan, whose son Falah is a parliament member of the national dialogue, at the Haj Ali village in Qaiyara (south of Mosul) around 6 p.m. Zaidan was killed in that incident.”

The next day, the last day in office of Vice President Cheney, saw another five roadsides bombs detonated. Three were in Baghdad, the other two in Mosul, with the combined explosions killing one — a captain in the Ministry of the the Interior — and wounding another 18.

Cheney also turned down the chance to take any sort of responsibility for the current crisis that Iraq is going through. Iraq’s parliament finally named a new speaker, but the fate of current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki is still up in the air. Though formerly strongly supported by the United States, al-Maliki has been increasingly seen as overly biased towards his fellow Shiites and unable to reconcile the political crisis Iraq is going through. 

Are you saying it’s all Malaki and Obama?” Cheney readily agreed. “I think it’s primarily Malaki and Obama,” he said. “That’s what I believe and that’s what the history books will show.”

Cheney belongs either in a mental hospital or, better yet, at The Hague on trial for war crimes.  CNN and other media outlets that want to be considered legitimate as opposed to Fox News light need to cease giving the man a stage.

Chris Kluwe: A Gay NFL Player Will Not Be A Distraction

Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe (pictured above from an Out Magazine shoot) continues to be a vocal supporter of both gay marriage and gay athletes and their right to come out if they so desire. He has some strong words for homophobic pro-athletes and has pens a powerful piece on CNN about gay players and whether they would be a "distraction" to a team.  Candidly, I am not much of a pro sports fan, but I am a huge fan of Chris Kluwe.  Here are some highlights from his op-ed followed by a video clip:

"Don't be a distraction."  These words are pounded into every single NFL player's head from the day he enters the league until the day he leaves (and I would imagine it holds true for just about every professional sport).

The same message, over and over and over -- "The team comes first," "Sacrifice your personal goals to win," "Only be judged by what goes on between the lines" -- which is why I find it unsurprising that there are no openly gay athletes in any of the big four professional sports leagues in the U.S.: the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB.

This isn't right.  It's not right that professional sports, and especially the professional sports media, have created an environment where gay players are willing to hide essential components of themselves as human beings in order to pursue their dreams, in order to not be a distraction. It's not right that our insatiable lust for sports coverage creates an atmosphere where someone would willingly subordinate his life to a backward and bigoted worldview in order to stay employed.

Why do people care so much about someone else's sexuality? Why do people give two s***s how someone else lives his life? Why do people have this absolutely idiotic notion that being gay has any sort of effect on how well a player can play football, or basketball, or baseball? Why the f*** do I even have to write this column for a major news organization to talk about something that shouldn't even remotely be a factor in sports?

Well, the reason is simple. I'm writing this because no gay player is currently out, and the first gay player who eventually does come out needs to know that -- despite all the indoctrination from the league about not being a distraction -- if he's the one to take the first step, he will have allies. He will have support. He will have those of us who realize that people's sexuality doesn't define who they are, just as their jobs don't define who they are, and that guys who bring our wives and children to games and team events are no different than those who would bring their husbands and children.

Most importantly, I'm writing this so that coaches, managers, players, owners and fans realize that the first gay player who comes out won't spontaneously cause rainbows to erupt out of everyone's rear.

Instead of looking at an openly gay player as a distraction, ask yourselves -- how much better would that player play if he didn't have to worry about hiding a core part of who he is? How many more sacks would he have, free of that pressure? How many more receptions? How many more rushing yards?

Fans, media -- will an openly gay player be a distraction? Only if you make it one. Only if you insist on denying someone the freedom to live his own life on his own terms, instead of under someone else's control. Stop worrying about who a player dates; worry about his completion percentage, or tackles for loss, or return average. I can promise you, on Sundays the only thing he's worried about is lining up and doing his job to the best of his ability, or else he's going to be cut (just like any of us).

Players -- Those of you worried about a gay teammate checking out your ass in the shower, or hitting on you in the steam room, or bringing too much attention to the team -- I have four simple words for you. Grow the f*** up. This is our job, we are adults, so would you kindly act like one?

New CNN Poll: 57% of Americans Know Someone Gay

A new CNN poll helps under score how living out of the closet makes a huge impact on LGBT acceptance and may, in fact, be one of the biggest reasons for the rapid change in attitudes towards gay marriage.  Outside of Christofascists circles, if one knows someone gay or has a gay family member, the chances are high that one will also support gay marriage.  It's more bad news for the professional Christian crowd and those who have been enriching themselves by peddling anti-gay animus.  Here are highlights on the poll findings:

One day before the Supreme Court hears a high profile case on same-sex marriage, a new national poll indicates that the percentage of Americans who say they have a family member or close friend who is gay or lesbian is on the rise. And that increase matches a jump in the percent of the public who support legal same-sex marriages. According to a CNN/ORC International survey, 57% say they have a family member or close friend who is gay or lesbian, up 12 points from 2007.

"The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has risen by almost the same amount in that time - from 40% in 2007 to 53% today - strongly suggesting that the rise in support for gay marriage is due in part to the rising number of Americans who have become aware that someone close to them is gay," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

According to the poll, people who say they know someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to be younger and more likely to have attended college, with women more likely to say that than men. And not surprisingly, support for gay marriage is highest among women, college educated Americans, and the young. 

"Attitudes toward homosexuality are the result of many complex, interrelated factors. Past polling, for example, has also shown that support for gay marriage has risen during a time when a growing number of Americans believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with. But years of polling suggests that the growing number of Americans who know someone who is gay has contributed to an environment in which gay marriage now receives support from a majority of Americans," says Holland.

Whatever the Supreme Court may decide to do in the gay marriage cases, the Christiofascists have seemingly lost this part of the culture war.  Sooner or later gay marriage will be nationwide.

CNN Also Gives Hate Group a Platform

In an earlier post I complained about CBS's Face the Nation giving a platform to  hate group leader Tony Perkins.  Sadly, CBS is not the only member of the mainstream media that continues to give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it and that blatantly fail to advise viewers and readers about the hate group status of Family Research Council.   While pursuing CNN's website I came across an opinion piece by Peter Sprigg of FRC while claims that the proposed enactment of employment non-discrimination protections for gays "threatens free markets."  Sprigg also trots out the standard canard that gay rights threaten religious liberty:

One concern about ENDA is its impact on religious liberty. ENDA would effectively forbid employers to consider sexual conduct in evaluating the character of their employees or applicants. Although ENDA contains a limited "religious exemption," there remain serious questions as to whether any exemption would be adequate to meet the concerns of people with religious and moral scruples against homosexual conduct.

Sprigg then goes on to claim that sexual orientation is a choice and not worthy of legal recognition as a protected class (demonstrating once again why promoting the "ex-gay myth" is so important to Christofascists):

[T]he question is who decides what is "relevant to job performance" -- the individual employer, or the government? The strong presumption should be in favor of the employer. Of course, federal law already interferes with private employment decisions with regard to a few specific characteristics. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on "race, color, national origin, sex, and religion." The first four of these are included largely because they are inborn, involuntary and immutable. While sexual attractions may be involuntary, neither sexual conduct nor transgender behavior meets any of these criteria.

Even secular employers have reason to worry about a possible increase in sexualization of the workplace.  .  .  .  .   The gender identity provisions, meanwhile, undermine the right of employers to impose reasonable dress and grooming standards, by forbidding employers to use the most fundamental standard of all -- that people be dressed and groomed in a way that is culturally appropriate for their biological sex.

ENDA prepares the way for a form of reverse discrimination -- against anyone who expresses disapproval of homosexual behavior. The more open homosexuals become, the more people with traditional values will be forced to conceal their views.

And as the above demonstrates, according to Sprigg, we gays are sexually promiscuous and disruptive by our very existence.    It's more of FRC's continued effort to stigmatize and slander gays - which is exactly why it earned a hate group designation.  Sprigg also demonstrates another phenomenon:  The Christofascist hate groups always love to give their spokesmen lofty titles with a goal of giving them much more credibility than they deserve.  In the case of Peter Sprigg, his title is "Senior Fellow for Policy Studies."  What are his true credentials?  Here's what we find on the FRC website: 

Sprigg is an ordained Baptist minister. Before coming to FRC, he served as pastor of Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, N.Y. Mr. Sprigg previously served for ten years as a professional actor and unit leader in Covenant Players, an international Christian drama ministry. Prior to his career in ministry, Mr. Sprigg worked in the government and non-profit sectors . . . . Mr. Sprigg received the Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Mass.) .  .  .

In short, he is anything but an expert on free markets or interstate commerce.  His agenda is all about forcing extreme far right religious belief into the civil laws.  Moreover, he has a history of vicious anti-gay vitriol.  In February 2010, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, stated on NBC's Hardball that gay behavior should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" should be enforced. In May that same year, Sprigg publicly suggested that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would encourage molestation of heterosexual service members.   

Nowhere, of course does any of this important information appear to inform readers of what Sprigg's real agenda is and has been for many years: defaming and stigmatizing LGBT Americans.  For CNN to afford Sprigg an editorial spot is the height of irresponsibility, particularly when no disclaimer is made about Sprigg's horrifically anti-gay past, not to mention the failure to specify that FRC is a hate group.  If CNN wants to be seen as a serious news outlet and stop its ratings slide, it needs to stop acting like the National Inquirer by allowing hacks and hate merchants like Sprigg to have a platform at CNN.

Do Gay Celebrities Have an Obligation to Come Out?

In the wake of Anderson Cooper's decision to belatedly "come out" yesterday, the debate has been ratcheted up on whether or not gay celebrities have an obligation to come out.  One view sees celebrity and the access to the media that it provides as putting pressure on closeted individuals to come out and shatter the stereotypes and stigma.  Others view the issue of coming out as a personal choice.  I guess I fall some where in the middle - unless the closeted celebrity or politician is engaged in anti-gay activity, in which case then my view is "out the bastard."  Our former Congressman in this area Ed Schrock who I helped expose was a case in point: second most anti-gay voting record in Congress even as he solicited gay sex trysts.  The New York Times as a dialogue on the issue.  First, the view that gay celebrities need to come out:   

Not all gay people in the media feel as radical as I do about why it’s important for gay celebrities to come out of the closet. But having been a teenager in the 1980s, I remember when there were no — as in zero — out role models for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids to emulate. Instead, we survived on rumors of Sapphic superstar love triangles and A-list leading men who joined cults that helped keep their gay secrets. Gossip has its own power, not to mention pleasure, but let’s face it: The world is a better place when people aren’t lying. 

So much has changed since that time, and there is now a platter of options for celebrities who want to come out. There’s the People magazine route (splashy, safe, widely-circulated); there’s the recent Matt Bomer path, when he casually, yet seismically, thanked his longtime male partner during a speech (see also: Jodie Foster); and there’s a new road that I really like, which is the Zachary Quinto/Jim Parsons method, in which an actor simply identifies himself as gay as part of a bigger story in a highbrow news outlet.

Cooper has struck me in recent years as an example of a closeted famous person who didn’t mean for his secret to become such a big deal, and found himself stuck. But I think he’ll find that it’s easy to go from being a part of the toxic problem of homophobic self-hatred to a hero. And who wouldn’t want that? 

But as I said, not everyone shares this view and I know people locally who continue to live a lie in the public life while having either enduring relationships or a string of conquests.  Their very behavior suggests that being gay is still something that is shameful.  Here's a countering view from the Times:

If we suggested that gay celebrities have a moral obligation to come out, then any celebrity would have the same responsibility to acknowledge any hidden situation whose disclosure could theoretically help society. The heartbreak of psoriasis? Do a public service announcement. A victim of sexual abuse? You need to go talk about it on “The View.” Going bankrupt? Get ahead of this story and help other Americans in similar situations.

Obviously this is a ridiculous standard. We’re talking about people’s romantic lives, which are, by definition, notoriously confusing and fickle.

I’ve always said there are four kinds of gays in Hollywood. There's the openly gay; the gay and everybody knows it but nobody talks about it; the married, closeted gay who doesn't talk about it; and the screaming “I’ll sue you if you say I'm gay” person. In other words, the no closet, the glass closet, the cast iron closet and the closet you get buried in.

Of course, it’s 2012. Celebrities and the rest of us have less privacy than ever before. But you still get to choose how openly you want to live your life — or at least you can try until blogs and tabloids out you. 

That being said, surely every celebrity who has ever come out is happier and freer of fear, helps other people, furthers the cause of gay civil rights, and lives a more open and authentic life. So if someone wants to stay in the closet, they’re not being immoral — just silly.

With the suicides of gay teens far too prevalent, the more celebrities who come out and provide a glimmer of hope to LGBT youth the better.   Remaining in the closet sends a potentially dangerous message to or youth and underscores the hate and bigotry preached weekly in far too many church pulpits.  To me making a difference and making life better for those who come after us should be a top aspiration in life.  Staying in the closet doesn't accomplish that goal.

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Takes Anti-Gay, White Supremacist Tony Perkins To Task

As I have noted before, it drives me to distraction and yelling at the television when I see main stream media outlets giving uber-homophobic, white supremacist loving, pathological liar Tony Perkins a platform from which to spew his lies and disinformation without challenge or any acknowledgement of  Perkins' truly foul history and baggage.  Thankfully, that trend ceased at least temporarily when CNN's Brooke Baldwin went after Perkins' bigotry and refused to back down on her questioning.  Not surprisingly, Perkins either refused to answer or fell back to his "religious belief" cop out. Perkins needs to be challenged like this EVERY time he goes on the airwaves.  Better yet, his sordid history should be summarized when he is first introduced so that viewers will understand the hate and animus that motivate Perkins and the hate group that he leads.   A video clip is set out below.  Here are highlights from Mediate:

Tony Perkins has been particularly loud in recent days as a voice against equal rights of marriage for same-sex couples, arguing that one minority in the society cannot define religious sacraments that, for some reason, are also governmental institutions “for the rest of us.” He took his crusade to CNN today with anchor Brooke Baldwin, who flummoxed the Family Research Council leader with simple questions like “have you ever been to the home of a same-sex couple?” and “why do homosexuals bother you so much?”

From the start of the interview, it was clear that Perkins was not interested in discussing the matter in personal terms, instead noting that “30 states have enshrined that definition into their constitution with an average vote of 67%,” and the issue at hand was not the private lives of loving couples, but “what we’re talking about here is the curriculum in our public schools.” Baldwin didn’t seem to buy into this argument, asking, “why are we talking about curriculum in the school when this is about love and the law and the ability to get married?” Perkins replied that the subject was one in the same: “religious freedom, parental rights, public accommodation.”

 Baldwin asked him whether his experience had corroborated that belief: “Have you ever been to the home of a same-sex couple?”

Perkins answered in the negative, and refused to argue what he would tell that hypothetical couple to convince them their lifestyle was hurting society. “We don’t make public policy based on what is good for me… not anecdotes or what one couple likes.” As a society, Perkins asserted, “we have incurred a great harm.”

“I know you don’t want to answer the question,” Baldwin asked, patience wearing visibly thin, “but I’m going to try again: why do homosexuals bother you so much?” “They don’t bother me!” Perkins replied, asserting again that he was “not going to be silent while they try to redefine marriage in this country.”

Exposing Tony Perkins' and Mitt Romney's Lies About Marriage

I have vented before about the mainstream media giving anti-gay hate group leader Tony Perkins (who also has white supremacist ties) a platform from which to spout deliberate lies and falsehoods about the LGBT community and the true history of marriage.  The latest lazy news outlet to allow Perkins to spout unchallenged lies is CNN.  Fortunately, Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC let Perkins have it and laid out the falsehood that marriage has always been "one man and one woman."  He also touched on Mitt Romney's hypocrisy - Mr. Etch A Sketch conveniently forgets that his grand father had five wives.  Just like he's forgotten his past homophobic bullying.  Here's a clip of O'Donnell's smack down for those who missed it last night:

In addition, GLAAD president Herndon Graddick has a scathing piece in Huffington Post that goes after the shiftless news anchors who never challenge Perkins' lies.  Here are highlights:

 Judging by its coverage of President Obama's announcement that he now supports marriage equality, it appears CNN still has a little "evolving" of its own to do.

The bulk of the media's coverage of this issue has been focused on what this statement will mean politically for President Obama and the Democratic Party -- and what it means for the future of marriage equality, now that a solid majority of Americans and the president support it. This includes CNN, which had several thoughtful pieces and interviews on these ideas. For example, Anderson Cooper's panel of Alex Castellanos, Paul Begala and Evan Wolfson broke down the issue purposefully, in a way that would help the audience better understand the significance of this announcement.

So with a wealth of political thinkers, analysts and strategists to go to -- why has CNN turned to Tony Perkins three times in the last few days to represent the "other side?"

Here's the crux of the problem -- and the exact reason why GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project was born. Tony Perkins and others of his ilk cannot be used to exemplify those who simply oppose marriage equality. CNN is more than welcome to interview him on the issue of marriage equality, of course. His is unquestionably one of the loudest voices in the nation speaking about the issue.

But when Perkins gets interviewed, a responsible journalist needs to tell the audience exactly who Perkins is speaking for. Based on his own statements -- Tony Perkins represents people who believe supporting LGBT equality is akin to being a terrorist. Who believe marriage equality is the same as bestiality. Who say that gay people are "vile," "hateful," "spiteful" "pawns of the enemy." Tony Perkins does not represent people who oppose marriage equality. Tony Perkins represents those who oppose LGBT people -- period.

If CNN wants that side represented in this discussion, then Perkins is absolutely the right man for the job. But they need to make it clear to the audience that that's what he's there for. And by not doing so, they have not told the whole story. Wolf Blitzer's interview with Perkins is a perfect example of this.

To cable news viewers, he's just the conservative guy who comes on sometimes to talk about gay stuff from a Republican point of view. But Perkins' own statements will show you that those positions don't come from politics. They are the result of pure animus towards gay people, and a belief that they're doing the work of "the enemy."

You can expose how extreme Perkins' positions are by challenging them, like O'Brien and Morgan did. But you're still not telling the whole story, unless you tell your audience what's at the heart of those positions. We are once again asking journalists to hold anti-gay activists like Perkins accountable for their own statements against LGBT people, and to deliver that critical information to their audiences.

CNN Gives Platform to Hate Group Leader

It's disgusting how the mainstream media continues to give platforms to registered hate group leaders such as Tony Perkins. If these news outlets were consistent, they ought to be providing column space for the Klu Klux Klan and white supremacist organizations. Why they cannot see that hate is hate regardless of the target is troubling. Then again, it may be a symptom of the special rights given to religious based hate - at least if the haters are nominally Christian. I doubt that CNN would give column space to a Islamic extremist preaching Sharia law based hate. The same rule ought to apply to Perkins. Instead, CNN is allowing Perkins to blather about "Who social conservatives want for 2012." Let's be candid. What Perkins and his followers want is an overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of a theocracy with themselves in charge. Thus, CNN is in actuality aiding in sedition against the Constitution. CNN needs to get its head out of its ass and see reality. While Perkins doesn't say it outright, we members of the LGBT community remain enemy number one to the Christofascists:

*

White flags and "round toits" are unacceptable on the fundamental social issues of life -- marriage, family and religious liberty. There is no room in the political parlor for those courting values voters if they are ambivalent about the sanctity of human life, and the bedrock institution of the natural family, an institution that is grounded in marriage between one man and one woman, and their capacity to transmit life to the next generation.

*

If CNN is going to promote Perkins' religious based screed, they at least need to have the integrity to notate that FRC is a registered anti-gay hate group. That would be honesty in journalism.

Gay CNN Anchor Comes Out Publicly With Book

Yet another highly visible professional has decided to come out publicly. This time it's CNN weekend anchor Don Lemon who is releasing a book entitled Transparent that deals with his career and life. As the New York Times reports, Lemon:

*

"has no illusions about what he is getting himself into with the book he has written about his career — and life. In “Transparent,” Mr. Lemon has a lot to say about reporting for television and about journalism in general. But he knows enough about news to recognize what will get this book noticed. “People are going to say: ‘Oh, he was molested as a kid and now he is coming out.’ I get it,” he said."

*

Some would say that Lemon's decision to be up front and totally open about who he is should not be seen as a big deal. However, with each visible figure who comes out publicly, the stereotypes used against LGBT citizens by the Christian Taliban are challenged and eroded a bit more each day. It is so important that role models exist for LGBT teens who are struggling with who they are - often in hostile regions of the country where all they see and hear is anti-gay negativity. Lemon has dedicated his book to the memory of Tyler Clementi. Here are more highlights from the Times article:
*
Few national television news anchors or hosts have publicly acknowledged being gay. Rachel Maddow is perhaps the best known. Her MSNBC colleague, Thomas Roberts, has also come out as gay.
*
Mr. Lemon has not made a secret of his sexual orientation in his work life; many of his CNN co-workers and managers have long been aware that he is gay. But he still acknowledged that going public in his book carries certain risks.
*
Even beyond whatever effect his revelation might have on his television career, Mr. Lemon said he recognized this step carried special risk for him as a black man.
*

“It’s quite different for an African-American male,” he said. “It’s about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You’re taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away.” He said he believed the negative reaction to male homosexuality had to do with the history of discrimination that still affects many black Americans, as well as the attitudes of some black women.
*
So why do it? It really came down to the act of writing the book. Mr. Lemon said he had been on a panel a couple of years ago called “The Black Man in the Age of Obama,” and was approached afterward by a publisher’s representative about writing an inspirational book.
*
“I abhor hypocrisy. I think if you’re going to be in the business of news, and telling people the truth, of trying to shed light in dark places, then you’ve got to be honest. You’ve got to have the same rules for yourself as you do for everyone else.” He has been assured of support by CNN
*
“I think it would be great if everybody could be out,” he said. “But it’s such a personal choice. People have to do it at their own speed. I respect that. I do have to say that the more people who come out, the better it is for everyone, certainly for the Tyler Clementis of the world.” . . . “I think if I had seen more people like me who are out and proud, it wouldn’t have taken me 45 years to say it,” Mr. Lemon said, “to walk in the truth.”

Biblical Scholar Shoots Down "Bible Based" Anti-Gay Bigotry

This blogs spends a lot of time focusing on the anti-gay hatred that Christianists and professional Christians direct at LGBT citizens - hatred that constantly spills over into the political realm and which to date keeps LGBT Americans in a second or third class citizenship status. The foes of LGBT equality under the CIVIL laws constantly pick and choose which Bible passages they want to follow (generally ignoring the larger Gospel message in the process) and do all kinds of contortions to ignore historical evidence that undercuts the Bible's alleged inerrant nature - not to mention Bible passages that condemn their Pharisee like behavior towards gays. A piece at CNN by a Biblical scholar, Jennifer Wright Knust , in effect points out that the Bible as a whole does NOT support the anti-gay condemnation of the Christianists Needless to say, the Christo-fascists at AFA, FRC, FOTF, NOM and similar merchants of hatred will not be pleased with Wright Kunst's analysis (which I suspect is supported by much more true scholarship that that of two bit Bible beating pastors). Here are some highlights:
*
We often hears that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it. As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing. . . . Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.
*
Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.
*
Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend. Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.
*
Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels - not sex between men - that led to the demise of the city.
*
Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.
*
Yes, the apostle Paul selected same-sex pairings as one among many possible examples of human sin, but he also assumed that slavery was acceptable and then did nothing to protect slaves from sexual use by their masters, a common practice at the time. Letters attributed to him go so far as to command slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands as if they were obeying Christ.
*
These passages served as fundamental proof texts to those who were arguing that slavery was God’s will and accusing abolitionists of failing to obey biblical mandates.
*
It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.

MSNBC Fires Keith Olbermann

Back in early November I wrote about the fear that MSNBC might take a hard lurch to the right if Comcast's take over of NBC was approved and former Bush fundraiser Steve Burke (pictured at left) was placed at the helm of MSNBC. Sadly, such fears were apparently justified as evidenced by Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC which Olbermann announced last night. As I indicated in November, the boyfriend and I have been faithful in watching MSMBC, but if the management wants to kill the cutting edge and much needed investigative approach of Olbermann and Maddow - who may be next in Burke's cross hairs - then our viewing habits will change and MSNBC can kiss out loyalty goodbye. John Aravosis at America Blog is unhappy as well and here our some highlights (make sure you sign the petition backing Olbermann):
*
Keith says he was told "this is going to be the last edition of your show." Here's the rather curt statement from MSNBC.
*
Wow. Not a smart move by MSNBC. More than a few folks on Twitter, and elsewhere, are noting the interesting coincidence of Comcast being given approval to take over NBC just three days ago. Rather interesting timing. It's also interesting that the Republicans take over the House and suddenly Keith is gone - perhaps MSNBC has decided it wants more conservatives, or at least to lose its fiercest liberals.
*
If I were CNN, I'd hire him fast. This is the kind of energy and intellect CNN needs in its evening shows (not that it doesn't have some good talent). But Olbermann knows TV. And he's no Glenn Beck, but at the same time is a perfect counterpoint to the Becks of the world.

*

Again, it looks like my days of tuning into MSNBC all evening is a thing of the past. I will tune in for Rachel, but beyond that my comment to MSNBC is go f*ck yourself.

Why Is CNN Using Hate Groups for "Balance" On LGBT Issues

The Boston Globe - which I commented on recently for its piece on Scott Lively - is unfortunately not the only supposedly reputable news outlet that resorts to using representatives of registered hate groups in the supposed quest of being "fair and balanced" in covering LGBT issues. CNN is another such news outlet that gives the hate groups a constant platform. As noted in the post on the Globe's ass kissing of Lively, if CNN is to be consistent, then each spot on a racial civil rights issue ought to have the Klu Klux Klan as a counterpoint. GLAAD has had enough of this disingenuous bullshit and has started a petition that will be delivered to CNN demanding that this equivalent of yellow journalism cease. I encourage readers to sign the petition here. It is beyond ridiculous that individuals who would NEVER be given a venue/platform on issues of religious or racial discrimination time and time again are given a free rein on gay bashing. Particularly when the individuals represent documented hate groups with records of lies and untruths. Here are highlights from GLAAD's explanation for the petition campaign:
*

CNN has long been one of America's most respected journalistic organizations on many issues, but for several years, it has had a giant blind spot when it comes to issues that impact the LGBT community. On December 21, John King USA ran a segment featuring Peter Sprigg from Family Research Council, but there are countless other examples. Out of a desire for 'balance' on these issues, CNN turned - as they often do - to the anti-gay industry to provide the counterpoint. Except all too frequently, the network doesn't book these people because they provide any actual expertise or experience on issues that impact LGBT people; their only qualification is that they are anti-gay.
*
Sprigg's qualifications, however, came exclusively from his job at the Family Research Council. There, Sprigg has worked to advance some of the most hurtful, dangerous, and demonstrably false notions about the lives of LGBT people that our country has seen in recent years. And yet, by pairing him with Nicholson in this segment, CNN told its millions of viewers that both of these men should be seen as equally valuable to this discussion.
*
The media is elevating their hurtful messages and attitudes to the level of rational discourse. The media is saying that people like Alexander Nicholson, who can speak to real-life experience and firsthand facts, need to be "balanced" by people like Peter Sprigg, whose claim to fame is arguing that being gay should be outlawed. If CNN wants to interview a gay person who believes being straight should be outlawed, THEN Peter Sprigg would be an acceptable "balance."
*
I've signed the petition because it is far past time that CNN and other news outlets stop lending an image of credibility to those who lack ant legitimate credentials - Peter Sprigg being but one such example. I hope every reader will do so as well.