It is a practice that can be observed in media organisations from the United States to Britain to Singapore and possibly elsewhere, at one time or other. Anti-gay advocates from religious fundamentalists to thinly disguised "conservative family values" campaigners have often been called upon to provide anti-LGBT comments in a misguided attempt to provide a 'balanced' view to LGBT-related news stories.
In December, UK's Pink News took the BBC to task for its decision to feature a supporter of state-sponsored execution of gay men as the sole commentator for its story about the birth of a surrogate son to Elton John and his partner. Stephen Green, of right-wing group Christian Voice, called the new child a "designer accessory" and accused the couple of acting out of "pure selfishness to deprive a baby of a mother." When contacted, the BBC defended its decision to feature an opposing viewpoint.
In April 2010, CNN, a US cable news channel that broadcasts worldwide, featured ex-gay activist Richard Cohen alongside California Assembly woman Bonnie Lowenthal to discuss a story about efforts to repeal an outdated California law requiring the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes” and “cures” of being gay with CNN's Kyra Phillips. This is despite the fact that Cohen is not licensed and has been discredited by major mainstream psychological associations.
On December 21 last year, CNN’s John King ran a segment on then pending repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and its implementation. During the segment, Peter Sprigg from Family Research Council appeared alongside openly gay former service member Alex Nicholson who gave firsthand accounts of how the policy played out in the day-to-day lives of gay and lesbian service members.
GLAAD however questioned Sprigg’s lack of qualifications given that it appears that he was invited based solely on his job at the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organisation linked to Focus on the Family." The watchdog noted: "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."
"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.
"Is it important for the media to take these groups on? Of course it is. But that’s not what CNN and other media organizations are doing when it invites these groups to take part in otherwise reasonable discussions. 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.”
GLAAD further warns that when the CNN and other media outlets invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming, they are "doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric."
GLAAD finally urges readers to tell the media that "if they can't find someone who isn't part of the anti-gay industry to discuss an issue that involves the LGBT community, then the 'other side' of that issue isn't one worth hearing."
The petition, which has attracted over 2,500 signatures, reads:
Dear CNN: Use experts, not the anti-gay industry.
Dear CNN:,
With the new year upon us, I am asking you to make a resolution to keep anti-gay groups off of your airwaves.
When a story impacts the LGBT community, think about how you would treat the story if it impacted any other group of people. If you were running a story about education, would you seek out the opinion of someone who hates teachers? If you were running a story about agriculture, would you invite a guest who believes farming is a sin? Of course not, yet the anti-gay point of view is one you seek out regularly.
These groups, whose only qualification is their animosity towards LGBT equality, bring absolutely nothing of value to your airwaves – and by inviting them on, you're only lending them your credibility and elevating their messages. If you are seeking a second opinion on issues of LGBT rights, I ask you to stay away from members of the anti-gay industry, and instead consult actual experts. No matter what the exact topic, you should always be able to find a professional who can offer something beyond animus. Educators, scholars, consultants, psychologists, military historians, medical professionals – no matter what field your story is related to, you can always find an actual expert who can bring something of real value to these conversations.
In this New Year, I am asking you to please stop giving these anti-gay activists a platform for their false and dangerous messages, and instead give your audience the information they need.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
To sign the petition or for more information, click onto Glaad.org/tellcnn