Originally posted by Feba
View Post
I don't see enough evidence to say that the LGBT group mentioned (GET) inappropriately used the opportunity to advance their agenda, but it's hardly difficulty to believe the temptation may be there. (But, can it really be called exploitation if the suicide teens' family join in? lol.)
BBQ overplayed the possibility, while Feba prematurely dismissed it as not harmful, I think.
* * *
Did people here actually read the quoted school policy?
The policy sounds like a cautious attempt to avoid getting the organization mired in political murk that usually accompany hot button issues, while emphasizing the schools have the responsibility and the inclination to deal with bullying--which really is a problem larger than just LGBT. It's conservative in the original sense of the word--that of moderation and caution--and not to be mistaken with far-right Conservatism (capitalized).
A bit cowardly? Perhaps. Evil? Hardly seems so.
* * *
As for the "Parents Action League", as long as they don't come out of the shadow (or the closet? har har) and show some political muscles, the school district would likely just ignore them.
The worst part, however, is how that article was a really, REALLY weak on how this group had much of anything to do with the school's stated policy or its actual practices; seems like the paper just wanted to toss in a conspiracy to spice up the story.
It's also really poor journalism to slant the story by describing the "Parents Action League" with negative words like 'anonymous', 'shadowy', etc. instead of using more neutral descriptions as the writer has done for the LGBT group Gay Equity Team. Not every source deserves equal respect, but whenever possible, journalists should let the source's own words and actions be the guide to to the readers on their veracity.
Overall, it's a slanted article designed to elicit an emotional responses instead of provoke intelligent thoughts--a poor example of what journalism should be.


Leave a comment: