This column was first published in the Chicago Free Press, June 13, 2007
For years I have been irked by the news media's unwillingness or inability to ask intelligent and probing follow-up questions when politicians, political preachers or other newsmakers make woefully ignorant or mendacious statements about gays.
If they refer to being gay as a choice, newspeople could ask, "Do you mean to say that feeling sexual desire for a man or a woman is a choice between equally attractive options?" or "Did you personally feel sexual desire for people of the same sex as strongly as you did for people of the opposite sex?" or 'When did you decide to feel sexual desire for women rather than men? Was that hard to decide?"
Or when know-nothings like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blame natural disasters or enemy attacks on gays and lesbians (or abortionists or feminists), why don't newspeople ask if it is not instead God's judgment on preachers who distort God's message of love for the world? Or ask if the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia was caused by homosexuals (etc.) in that region? Or when something good happens, does that indicate God's approval of homosexuals (etc.)?
There are several ways to probe homophobic statements. A newsperson could ask for clarification of exactly how something could be true, or ask why the newsmaker rejects alternative possibilities, or cite a recognized authority in disagreement, or pose counter-examples. Newsmen usually know in advance what a prominent person will say on an issue, so you would think that part of their preparation would be to have follow-up questions on hand. Apparently not.
Several recent examples of idiocy were on display at the early-June New Hampshire forum for Republican presidential aspirants. Asked about the military's exclusionary "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said, "This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment in the middle of a war." And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who knows better) said, "This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this one."
But a prepared questioner could have asked, "So in other words you would support allowing openly gay soldiers in time of peace?" Or the questioner could have asked, "But as you doubtless know, discharges of gay soldiers traditionally go down rather than up during times of war. Doesn't that suggest that the military wants all the manpower it can get during wartime?"
Or he could have asked, "But what is your evidence that this is any sort of social experiment? Did not the British military integrate openly gay soldiers in 2000? I have here a New York Times story datelined May 20 citing the British Ministry of Defense position that 'none of its fears--about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness--have come to pass.' Why do you think it would be different in the U.S.?"
Or he could have asked, "But as you are no doubt aware former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili wrote a New York Times op-ed earlier this year reversing his previous anti-gay position and advocating the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian soldiers. Is your perception of the military's needs more accurate than his?" Or he could more aggressively have asked, "To what extent is your position, like that of Gen. Peter Pace, based on a belief that homosexuality is immoral?"
According to the New York Times, several Republican candidates also said the current policy was "working well"? A smart questioner could have asked for a definition of "working well." Does the separation of more than 50 gay Arabic translators mean the policy is "working well? Does the refusal to accept people with needed language skills, or gay computer experts, or gay doctors and nurses mean the policy is "working well"?
Or the questioner could have pointed out that Southerners could claim that racial segregation in the military before 1948 "worked well" in the sense that it "worked" despite the obvious injustice and stigmatization involved. "Working well" is hardly a guarantee that something is good. And it evades the obvious possibility that something else could work better. After all, steam engines "worked well." So did rotary dial telephones. So did whale oil lamps.
And where in all this is GLAAD? Remember GLAAD--The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? If news reporters cannot think of follow-up questions, why isn't GLAAD preparing a "Guide to Follow-Up Questions" on gay marriage, gay military access, gay adoption and foster care, etc.? They could distribute such a guide to newspeople, essentially doing their preparation for them. But GLAAD just doesn't seem interested. Its staff is probably too busy arranging their next gala awards banquet for television and movie stars.