Friday, February 22, 2008

Yay For The Press VI: NBC4

Generally I have to say that through the years of the sex-ed controversy the TV coverage has been worse than the print media. You hate to see it, a group of nutty people, their faces all red as they describe their moral outrage over a health class, surrounded by television cameras, while rational people and policy-makers stand in the background, available for answering questions but not so indignant, not so red-faced, and no cameras pointed at them. When the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever staged their hoax at Rio, only Channel Seven actually sent somebody to cover it, they repeated the CRW talking points on the air. They told their viewing audience that a man in a dress went into the ladies room, and that it was a "test of the new law." Just what the CRW told them to say.

So I have been holding my breath, waiting to see how the media, including television, would handle the latest noise-making about the petitions. I cynically expected them all to repeat the talking-points. But no, they proved me wrong, nearly everybody so far has been fair, objective, unbiased.

I can't tell from the web site if Channel Four actually did an on-the-air broadcast of this or not, but here's their online version of the story:
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- Opponents of a new Montgomery County law protecting transgender people from discrimination have gathered 32,000 petition signatures, enough apparently to put the issue to voters.

The group that organized the petition drive, Citizens for a Responsible Government, said the law protects only a few people while infringing on the privacy rights of many others.

The law protects transgender people from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, and taxi and cable service. It was scheduled to take effect Wednesday but now appears headed for a voter referendum in November.

Critics believe the law threatens privacy in public restrooms, but supporters said the claim is a scare tactic and the law does not mandate changes in restrooms. Transgender Discrimination Law Appears Headed For Vote

Perfect. Gives the facts, tells the story, it's to the point. The narrative focuses on the shower-nuts, as well it might since they were filing their petitions, but the red herring argument does not sway them. They give it and move on.

Good for Channel Four, for reporting the news accurately and clearly, even when there are potential sensational sound-bytes to exploit. Let's hear it for responsible journalism!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, Jim, Jim.

You used to do this same thing every time a Christian in the news would say something nice about a gay person. Act like a miracle took place just because it turned out your preconceived notion was incorrect.

Your idea that the local media outlets were biased in favor of CRG was always hallucinatory. The media is doing a fine job now and always have been. I expect that to continue. Don't try to cover up your misconceptions by saying the Earth moved. It is as still as a dream.

Last night, I was watching the Demo debate from Texas and thinking how this guy Obama looks so dignified and presidential. I started to worry that maybe, just maybe, the party in the White House is going change, after all.

Then, like a bolt outta the blue, comes this gift:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party U.S. presidential campaign.

Nader will appear on NBC television's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show.

A spokesman for Nader did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race, but is no longer working for him, said Friday that Nader has been actively talking to "lots of people on all sorts of levels" about the possibility of making another run.

Zeese said he could only guess what Nader might do, but added: "Obviously, I don't think ("Meet the Press" host) Tim Russert would have him on for no reason."

Last month, Nader began an exploratory presidential campaign and launched a Web site that promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control."

Nader's appearance on "Meet the Press" was announced Friday in an e-mail message from Nader's exploratory campaign. The message from "The Nader Team" urges supporters to tell friends and family to watch the show and requests online contributions.

"As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks," the message says.

Nader is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost Democrats the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in the state of Florida. Nader has vociferously disputed the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush."

February 22, 2008 9:29 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

OO, the press have been wonderful with this story. It is a terrific opportunity to bring out the worst in a journalist, and almost none of them are falling for it.


Your side will have to win in an open debate. You want to re-legalize discrimination? OK, call it that and make the argument for it. Nobody's going to buy the "perverted men in the ladies room" story.


February 22, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is what "Dr. Ruth" said in her community newspaper(Kentlands resident Gaithersburg) in January,“Because 30 or 40 individuals in the county can’t accept their biology, they’re going to force others to deny their biology,”

Really is "Dr. Ruth" afraid of what she says about 30/40 individuals?

So it is okay to discriminate against the 30/40?

Hateful and disgusting to say they cannot accept their biology.


February 22, 2008 9:33 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Ted, we'll see what happens when Dr. Jacob's develops a disease -- will she accept her biology? I doubt it.

February 22, 2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To imply that gender is a disease is quite an adventurous philosophy. Why should we have a law that everyone must adopt this philosophy?

February 22, 2008 10:39 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


Where did I say gender is a disease? Ruth said "accept their biology." Your disease states are part of your biology. If she has a tumor I imagine she will want to have it extirpated.

I fixed a mismatch between my brain sex and genital sex. That's all. And I'll be damned if I let you insinuate that I'm a pedophile and a predator because I did.

February 22, 2008 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You drew an analogy between accepting one's biological gender and accepting a life-imperiling disease. The analogy is invalid.

A mismatch between one's biology and mind is, obviously, all in one's mind. You can say the psyche is another plane of reality if you'd like but no one else is obligated to accept your, well, idea.

No one, anytime or anywhere, has, to my knowledge, insinuated that you are a pedophile or a predator. It's all in your mind.

Observantly Anonymous

February 22, 2008 11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Double 00 said, "No one, anytime or anywhere, has, to my knowledge, insinuated that you are a pedophile or a predator."

Selective memory for the above? You must have lost your mind.


February 23, 2008 2:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must be a selective memory, Ted. Let's see the quote insinuating this.

February 23, 2008 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OO saidA mismatch between one's biology and mind is, obviously, all in one's mind.

No it isn't. Go check out the "biology" of interesexed individuals. Wikipedia's a good place to start. You obviously have no knowledge about such persons whose "biology" as you call it is ambiguous. What gender would the mind of a person with both or neither male and female genitalia be in your opinion? Do you think your mind knows better than the intersexed individual's mind what gender they are? You are nothing but a bully and a fOOl, posting uninformed and meaningless opinions.

February 23, 2008 8:51 AM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Objective Observer,

If you were truly objective, you wouldn't be playing games with semantics.

The petitioners said that the law would lead to predators and pedophiles harming people but did not provide any proof as to how it would happen.

Furthermore they made a claim about the law that just wasn't credible. That's the issue at hand.

February 23, 2008 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
OO alias Tom B alias Moron Nutty Anon- don't you have somewhere to be - isn't the AmRen conference this weekend? Are you writing from there? I'm sure you can find some companionship with those haters.

February 23, 2008 8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home