Saturday, March 18, 2006


Bad! Lack of Truth in Media

Y’know what really sucks? The media – major TV, radio and newspapers – have agendas about what they’ll publish and in terms of the perception they have in the public eye; whether they’re right-wing, etc. Their owners dictate who they are and what ‘wing’ they’ll occupy in the public mind. They are not objective, however much they might like you, Mr. and Mrs. Grade-8-reading-level to thinks so.

In the last few years, I’ve written editorials and several letters to the editor on two specific, issues. None of them were published. Why? Not due to the quality of my writing; I’ve been published enough times by those newspapers to know that they’ll take my stuff.

The reason they haven’t published my writing on these issues is that my opinion was reasonable and potentially could have stopped the arguments, which in other terms means limited the discussion; essentially, the show-stopper commentary.

The first issue was about the Delwin Vriend case that happened back in 1998. Delwin Vriend was a teacher with a Christian Reformed Church school. The school knew Mr. Vriend is gay they hired him. They later fired him, however, because he became (or revealed that he was) a ‘practicing’ homosexual. As a side point, people don’t practice their sexuality. They is what they is but they don’t have to practice.

This case sparked a shift in the Canadian constitution with the addition of legislation that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexuality. This is good. Nobody should be discriminated against for reasons of whom they sleep with (or might, were they ‘practicing’).

The media spin on this legislation, however, was that it applied to ‘gay rights’ only and in saying so, the media did exactly what the legislation was out to prevent: it discriminated against me – a straight chick – by implying that the legislation didn’t apply to me.

My editorial pointed out that everyone has a sexual orientation whether they’re straight, gay, bi or asexual, and that everyone was protected by that legislation, not just people who are gay. Secondly, sexual orientation and sexual practice are not always the same thing. Many straight people dabble in the gay lifestyle and many gay people, particularly from a certain generation, have been married – maybe still are married - despite their orientation.

As for the discrimination part, I have been discriminated against in a public place based on my straightness. I was not particularly bothered by the discrimination because it was minor and really didn’t affect my life in any way.

Here’s what happened: three of my friends and I decided to go to a great gay bar in our city. Three of us hadn’t been there before and one was a regular patron. At the door, a very large lesbian woman said that I couldn’t go in because it was a gay bar…. I replied that I was with “her,” being my female friend. Our two other companions, a gay guy and a very obviously straight guy didn’t even catch the door watcher’s eye. Weird.

The editorial I wrote based on this event was submitted several times to both our city’s majors but was never acknowledged or published. It was read on air, however, by a radio guy on a major station. This guy was constantly receiving mail from outraged listeners accusing him of being a woman hater, a gay basher and a misogynist. He was none of those but he was gay!

The point of my editorial is that no one, regardless of their sexual orientation or practice should have to suffer discrimination. I will make the point here that paedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation; it is a bona fide, and, in my opinion, incurable illness and so does not fall under the anti-discrimination legislation.

The second issue is that of choice, as in pro-choice. I take great offense and am embarrassed by my so-called sisters who wave their “I have the right to choose,” and “It’s my body,” banners but who do NOT make choices. Any woman who becomes pregnant when she doesn’t wish to, but because she has not made any pre-act choice, is a hypocrite in the highest degree. I say this from the point of view of a woman who became pregnant by not making a simple choice to walk down the road to the chemist to buy a box of condoms.

There is no excuse for unplanned pregnancies. If you don’t want to have a baby, then do something about it BEFORE you’re pregnant. And don’t wait for the man to get his act together. IF it is your body and IF it is your choice then ACT.

“It just happened” is not an excuse and it is definitely NOT a reason for an abortion. Period.

The newspaper will not print this point of view, however, because both sides of the argument would have to agree that if women actually did believe any of the ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’ crap they spout, there would be MANY fewer abortions. The media loves the pro-life/pro-choice argument because it has provided nearly half a century of good press. There’s no way they’re going to kill their gift horse, now, is there?!

The moral of this story is be careful what you believe about what you read in any media. The ultimate goal of any newspaper is to attract readers; radio wants to attract listeners. The media will do whatever they must to attract you, not limited to lies, coercion and frank manipulation of the facts and suppression of truth and reason.

1 comment:

You are welcome to leave your comments on the SUBJECT here; personal attacks and insults will be deleted.

Please feel free to discuss the issues. The stability or mental health of the blog writer is not considered a discussion issue....