Many schemes for pushing pro-homosexual propaganda through the media were hatched. If not for the internet, I would be distraught. Right now, I'm just annoyed. It's no surprise that most journalists are pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-Christian, anti-family, and are usually liberals. But to be so bold as say they will purposefully avoid going to Christian sources for new stories because they won't bow to the SIG (Sexuality Is God) is startling, even by today's low journalistic standards.
Do you know what is so amusing? Their talk about "telling the truth" as journalists. Here is an excerpt from the article, 'Gay’ Journalism Conference Panel Targets Religious Influence on Public Policy (emphasis and comments mine):
Organizer Mitchell Gold claimed the purpose of his session, titled “Oh God! (or Allah…Or Buddha): Reporting on Issues of Faith & Religion,” (The title should have been "Lying About Issues of Faith & Religion) was to discuss how homosexual journalists can report more accurately on religion. (Easy answer: They can't because they loathe religion with every molecule of their being. Religion is Enemy Number One to them.)
If that was really Gold’s purpose, then he recruited a very odd panel of experts. The panel included just one journalist, David Waters of The Washington Post. The other participants were former United Methodist minister Jimmy Creech, Episcopal seminary president Ian Markham, and Ann Craig, Director of Religion, Faith & Values for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
The discussion quickly degenerated into a seminar on how journalists can “conquer” the religion debate to advance the homosexual political agenda. Not surprising, given that Gold, a furniture magnate, is the founder of Faith in America, a homosexual activist organization targeting the religious community. (And if you are a Christian and want to increase your blood pressure, you can check out his site which has an ad for a site, "Would Jesus Discriminate?" It claims the traveling Ethoipian was the 'first gay' converting to the church because...he was a eunuch. Which I suppose to this guy meant he was 'gay.')
According to Gold, “the single biggest [obstacle] to gays having equal rights in the country is religion,” so “I set myself to learn about it.” GLAAD’s Craig said, “We’re not getting anyplace until we begin conquering the debate” in the religious community. (Read: Conquering faithful Christians so they have no choice but to embrace homosexuals and bow to SIG.)
David Waters, editor of the “On Faith” blog, which appears on The Washington Post and Newsweek Web sites, urged reporters “not to go” to established leaders like Robertson and Dobson, contrasting them to “real people”:
I think, as journalists, our No. 1 obligation is obviously to the truth, and if we’re going to be about the truth then we have to fight and we have to fight for space and for time to tell the right story and to tell the real story, (Wait. So the "real story" isn't Americans being rightly concerned about coercion and control within the media?) and I think the best way to go about that, at least I’ve found in my experience with my own reporting and with other reporters, is to take time and not go to the Pat Robertsons and the James Dobsons of the world but to find the real people who are really struggling with this issue. (In other words, change the conversation on same-sex marriage and how most Americans do not agree with it because you don't like the truth. Instead, gin up sympathy by placing gays as victims. Sure, Christians are getting railroaded out of the discussion but the gays are the victims...)
This is what annoys me. These "journalists" are intentionally creating the story. Forget that there are real people who hold opposing views and beliefs. They're not wanted. Instead, the media would much rather paint a rosy little picture of everyone agreeing to all the demands of the gay mafia.
There is no journalism anymore. Only storytelling. Those in the mainstream media are only telling their stories - and trying to pass it off as truth.