Mr. Chinni,

Thank you for soliciting feedback. I hope what I have to share will be useful.

Something I find disturbing is how much of our national news media, including the Monitor, tends to boil complex issues down to two opposing sides, rather than looking at the broader concerns of those in the middle. The problem with this approach is that it emphasizes extreme views and often legitimizes them. Worse, it is easily manipulated by those with ulterior motives.

There was an example of this recently in the Monitor's coverage of Gay Marriage. The author carefully represented the views of Gay Rights advocates, of legal experts, and of a Ms. Gallagher, who represented some "family" organization opposed to Gay Marriage. There was a quote in the article that I found telling and disturbing....

"In Gallagher's view, "We are in a situation where courts are declaring our great historic, cross-cultural understanding of marriage to be a form of bigotry. That's a very destructive message, when research shows that children do much better in households with a mother and a father."

In the narrow sense, I suppose there is nothing wrong with printing that quote as is and without further exploration. It is, after all, Ms. Gallagher's view. However, Ms. Gallagher is not citing any reputable research. There is no reputable study out there concluding "...that children do much better in households with a mother and a father." Even worse, Ms. Gallagher is using this false research and the debate about Gay Marriage to strongly imply that gay people are a danger to children.

The author of this story didn't explore the validity of the research. The author didn't explore Ms. Gallagher's broader views on what rights gays should have, if any. And the author failed to investigate any ulterior motives Ms. Gallagher might have had. I think it would be fair to assume she believes gays to be child molesters and bigots, based on their opposition to "traditional" marriage, but who knows for sure? Instead of digging below the surface and telling us about this person, the author portrays Ms. Gallagher simply as one half of the great debate, perhaps a half just as valid as the other side, despite the fact that she is implying that gays are a danger to children... based on no information.

In my opinion, using Ms. Gallagher as one side of the argument is the equivalent of having the KKK and the NAACP debate the validity of hate crimes legislation or affirmative action. Would having those two groups arguing really yield an accurate view of the issues?

Does Ms. Gallagher really speak for the 50% of the population that opposes Gay Marriage? I think not.

I am certain that there are people out there who oppose Gay Marriage without believing that gays are a danger to children, society, or anyone. I am certain that there are some rational and legitimate objections or concerns about gay marriage. I am also certain that after two years, I have only heard from the bigots who are using this debate to spread hatred and loathing of gays. This is no way to inform the public.

Another recent example of this involves MSNBC. I remember reading an article on their website discussing how some group of "concerned mothers" was protesting Barbie... or, more specifically, Mattel's website. Apparently, Mattel made the inexcusable mistake of giving children signing up for the Barbie Fan Club three choices of gender (boy, girl, and other). These mothers accused Mattel of pushing the "transsexual agenda," whatever that is, on children. The story got national coverage. The mothers got on TV. Mattel apologized and denied that it was anything other than mistake.

Unfortunately, nobody investigated the "transsexual agenda." Only a fool would think this "outrage" was anything other than an excuse to attack transgender people by publicly accusing them of having a agenda aimed at children. Nobody ever bothered to mention that self-identified transgender children have a 50% chance of being murdered or of killing themselves before the age of 18. I suppose their "agenda" might be to survive to adulthood.

I think it's about time that the national media take some responsibility for what it reports. If it's false and misleading, it should be pointed out and questioned. If it's an obvious publicity stunt, aimed at advancing someone's hidden agenda, it should be questioned openly. I would hope that if Hitler were alive and talking about the "Great Jewish Conspiracy" to destroy the German nation, the press might question the veracity of that claim. The fact that reputable news organizations, such as the Monitor and NBC, have been used to catapult the propaganda of apparent hate groups is a stain on both organizations. If I had been that sloppy in college, I would have gotten an "F."

John T. Korab
Albany, NY