Tweet
The Penn State situation has allowed anti-gay bigots to take another whack at the “gays-are-child molesters” piñata (see Alvin’s post about the deranged, homo-obsessed fringe bigot Peter LaBarbera, “Scapegoating gay men for the Penn State tragedy“), however, when you hear hate-filled, fact-free garbage that has nothing to do with this scandal being heaped on LGBT parents on the public airwaves, something has to be done.
On nationally syndicated Public Radio International program To The Point, host Warren Olney saw fit to devote the entire program, “After Penn State: Foster Care and Who Makes a Good Parent?” to “connecting” the parenting of accused child rapist Jerry Sandusky to all gay and lesbian parents’ fitness to raise children. What on earth is the purported connection? Sandusky ”adopted many children and took in foster children.” (Gawker):
The show began with a gay parent from L.A. who spoke for about a minute about how stringent the interviewing process was before he and his partner were allowed to adopt a daughter. Then Olney introduced Jerry Cox, president of Arkansas’ Family Council, a conservative group that unsuccessfully petitioned the state to pass a law that would prevent any child in the system from entering a foster home unless it was headed by “a married man and woman.” The state Supreme Court shot it down.
So the stage is set; a professional bible based anti-gay bigot has the mic, and Olney lets him run free for several minutes regurgitating the same bogus claptrap that objective studies have debunked over and over, now twisted for extra effect by adding the salacious, disgusting, clearly unlawful child rape case.
“The gold standard is that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a loving mother and father. Our position is that if the state is going to take children into custody, it ought to put children in the best homes possible…These children have been damaged, and need a stable home more than any child out there.What does the research and common sense show? You’re going to put them in a home with a loving mother and father.“
“I find it interesting that we talk about the Penn State situation, and then when we talk about people who claim to have these rights to adopt or foster; in both cases, the children’s rights get put in second place. If you give the rights to the adults, the children will be compromised.”
[On whether or not loving same-sex-parents homes might be preferable to being trapped in the system:] “If those are the only two choices —child be institutionalized or in a same-sex home — I would like to challenge this and say, maybe the state can do better than that. I blame the state for that. These children need a place to recover.“
This is sick. Olney and Public Radio International (Contact Page here) owe the public an apology for letting this heinous rant air unchallenged. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) needs to be all over this.
43 Comments
As I said in Alvin’s blog…
If the scum at Penn State had been a card carrying LGBT member, he probably wouldn’t have gotten the coaching job in the first place. But if by some miracle he did, the first time he entered a football locker room with a young boy (even fully clothed), they would have tied him to a goal post and set him on fire.
Until you can show that he can sleep with adult men, you holier-than-though heterosexuals own him–because at least we know he can sleep with women.
And yes I know I’m simplifying the complexities of child sexual abuse (power among others), sometimes you have to talk this way to the ignorant.
…speechless…
Oh, and this is acceptable to NPR? NPR, who flipped out when the host of an opera program it doesn’t even own anymore dared to visit — not to speak at, just to visit — the Occupy Wall Street protest site?
They’re not even Nice Polite Republicans anymore.
You’re right, Pam; they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
What Jerry Sandusky is alleged to have done with boys at his charity organization: is it relevant to adoption or foster parenting by heterosexual couples? No.
It’s even further removed from the topic of adoption by LGBT parents.
The scandals erupting from Penn State are producing a media feeding frenzy like nothing I can recall since OJ Simpson’s trial. One which has only barely begun…!
How many stories have I seen which conclude by lamenting how–in the sleazy tabloid atmosphere–the damage to these kids’ lives is being trampled aside, or forgotten? Of which a substantial proportion are themselves the epitome of the sad phenomenon being lamented.
I wasn’t aware that Sandusky’s pedophiliac proclivities even limited themselves to male children, as if that mattered. Do Cox and Olney know something the rest of us don’t know? Being know-nothings, I doubt they do.
I commented both on the Facebook page for this story, as well as on the webpage for this story.
Pam and Alvin both beat me to posting on this story — but if they hadn’t already posted on this, I definitely would have. What a disgraceful piece of “balanced” journalism — giving two sides of a story, but fact free on what the research and the experts say on the subject.
Oh, and just for any trolls that might show up here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/homosexuality-and-pedophilia-the-false-link
http://www.reflector.com/crimerescue/man-arrested-girl8217s-rape-763667
I guess heteros aren’t fit to raise kids either. Asexuals, we’re all counting on you now!
I’m on it Jake! We’ll let the trans asexual do the kid raising! =P
NPR can suck my virtual dick(s). Their over-reactivity to EVERYthing, from the firing of Juan Williams to their participation in the Lisa Simeone heavy-handed ousting and now this crap has made me very glad I don’t donate anymore.
Jake
Phoenix
Aside from all the other filthy nonsense, they don’t even make sense on the facts. Sandusky was MARRIED TO A WOMAN!!!!
Most of the things I have read in the past state quite clearly that most pedophiles are STRAIGHT, WHITE MEN. These bigots need to be stamped on hard when they do this sort of thing.
Not a certainty that he can have sex with women. They couldn’t have children, remember?
Because sick “heterosexual” men don’t rape little girls at far higher rates?
Child abuse has nothing to do with the perpetrators’ position on the Kinsey curve.
Actually shouldn’t Olney be questioning whether married Republicans should be allowed to adopt?
That’s what Sandusky is.
I listen to Warren Olney daily. I’ve never heard him utter an opinion on anything. Ever. If he has bigoted fruitcakes on his show it does not follow that he endorses their opinions. It would be more accurate to say that he is exposing those opinions to public scrutiny. Listen with care.
Two key points for Mr. Olney:
1. Sandusky was not “out”.
2. Marcus and Michele Bachmann have adopted lots of kids.
And then there is the obvious point that gay parents have raised great kids.
And the even more obvious point that straight people can be pedophiles.
When it was first suggested years ago that gay couples should be allowed to be foster parents, my kneejerk reaction was twofold: Hell No! and why would gays want children, anyway, unless they wanted to do something to those children.
Now, I know better. I’m a pure heterosexual. I don’t empathize at all with sexual attraction for members of the same sex. I don’t understand bisexuals, either, and transgender people just baffle me.
But the evidence is overwhelming that gay couples make perfectly good parents for children, be they gay or straight. In fact, the rate of abuse in foster homes headed by gay couples is LESS than that in those run by straight couples.
So, this crap about gays tending to pedophilia is nothing but homophobic propaganda. NPR should know better.
I’d like to offer some personal, anecdotal evidence here. In my own personal experience, most homophobic men I have met have at least bisexual tendencies themselves and it terrifies them. So, if I’m sitting in a bar next to a gay basher, I’ll say to him, “Oh, I don’t know. I think you have a pretty nice ass yourself.” The gay basher goes apoplectic every time, and most of the heterosexual men just laugh at him when he does. If he starts to get violent, he finds himself outnumbered and leaves in a huff.
Try it some time. It’s great fun.
This of course overlooks the fact that most victims of child sexual abuse are girls and most offenders are male.
A fair point: but the format of the show as described doesn’t seem like a balanced discussion panel. You don’t bring on professional talkers and advocates and pit them against average people on the other side, unless you as host are willing to take the other side.
Did the host seriously pit one lesbian parent vs a professional spokesman and expect some kind of back and forth? That’s terrible.
Although I don’t listen to him daily, I’m in LA and have heard him over the years. I have to agree with you. I’m wondering what else is going on that he should be so ripped here.
Maybe Warren is just another talking head. He very well may have someone else “booking” his shows. In terms of pitting two divergent voices. It’s not thought out well enough to fairly cover most issues.
And I just signed a petition this week to keep PBS on the air ( hangs head in shame)
The correct issue is whether sexual predators are fit to be employed and given authority over the young when they commit felonies using the power given them by their institutions. The issue has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientation or parenting. It is about predation, in this case, sexual, and the lengths institutions go to cover it up and thereby abuse the innocent, themselves and the purposes for which they are chartered.
Seems to me that Warren and his other guests pretty much dismantled Jerry Cox and his rather specious arguments. If there was an implied preference on this program, it looked to be away from the position held by the “Family Council.” I certainly heard no comparison of the Penn State matter to gay parenting. So, for me, Warren remains one of the “Good Guys.”
I love seeing this tragedy being used by every tom, joan and harry to flog their favorite whipping boy.
The other night, I am listening to NPR and they have a discussion going with some sports writers pontificating about how it was football this and football that and big money this and big money that that caused what happened at Penn State.
After about 15 minutes of that, they brought in an FBI agent with 30 years experience in Child abuse who recently retired and is now heading two child abuse organization who demolished them with the truth–this same thing happens at all organizations that have an incident of child sex abuse occur. That the truth is that it is RARE for a different outcome.
Human nature.
I also like hearing from all the arm chair generals going on and on about what brave and courageous things “they would have done.”
The above post was not referring to the person started this thread.
Reductive, know-it-all appeals to human nature and a boot-licking acquiescence of the status quo are a big part of the reactionary’s world view.
That which explains everything explains nothing (except the growing point at the top your head).
Justice demands that the specific truth/facts of this case be brought to light.
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
~Isaac Asimov
Even more,
Here’s just some of the research from the past 60 years:
The work of people like Nicholas Groth has been used as the basis for the FBI’s profiling of sex offenders.
“The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.”
Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation.
**************************
“Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.” A. Nicholas Groth, William F. Hobson, and Thomas S. Gary, “The Child Molester: Clinical Observations,” in Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse, eds. Jon R. Conte and David A. Shore (New York: Haworth Press, 1982), p.136.
**************************
“Amongst the heterosexuals, the commonest remarks concerning attractive features of the victims, were that the young boys did not have any body hair and that their bodies were soft and smooth.” Marshal, W.L.; Barbaree, H.E.; Butt, Jennifer. “Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences.”
******************************
“Homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children”
Journal of Sex Research -Freund, Kurt; Watson, Robin J.; Rienzo, Douglas. “Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and the erotic age preference.” Journal of Sex Research 26, no. 1 (1989): 107-117
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3813052
**************************
“..a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual.”
(Carole Jenny et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994)
**************************
“The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male”National Institutes of Health – PubMed (Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.”)
**************************
“The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data.”National Institutes of Health – PubMed (Groth and Birnbaum, “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.”)
**************************
“One study noted that 98% of these male perpetrators self-identified as heterosexual.”
Journal of the American Medical Association -
Sexual Abuse of Boys Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE; Gail B. Slap, MD, MS JAMA. 1998;280:1855-1862.
**************************
“A gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity with children.”
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality -(Stevenson, “Public Policy, Homosexuality and the Sexual Coercion of Children.”)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a904704257&db=all
**************************
The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study of over 4000 child molestors in the US also show that 97% of child molestors were religious and over 70% were married with children:
Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html
**************************
And here is a general article showing how some conservative religious anti-gay groups misrepresent and distort studies like those above to vilify homosexuals.
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Not really sure I understand your point.
It was not clear whether you were somehow supporting the sports writers or something else.
Who did you think was ascribing it to human nature?
I wasn’t, but it seems that you don’t think human beings have anything in common.
I would say that when an expert says these types of non-reporting, cover ups, etc. happen in 99% of the cases, reason dictates there is some common factor which has nothing to do with the type of organization, etc.
Now, does that mean it is excusable?? No. It just means that the various people who would like to use the situation to toot their horn on their favorite idea–whether “it shows gay people unfit to parent” or “football is evil”–know more about shooting their mouths off than anything else.
I also listen to Warren Olney almost every day, and I can tell you that this post is completely off-base; Warren is the *opposite* of mindless “both sides deserve a hearing” journalism; he might seem like that if you didn’t know his history, but in fact he is a) the best radio journalist now active; and b) a throwback to the Edward R. Murrow school of fearless and impartial journalism.
He is, in fact, a national treasure. A lot of our civic woes could be lessened if the Sunday TV talk shows were hosted by Warren Olney. It will never happen: he’s much too impartial, serious, and decent.
By the way, I have no connection to Warren or his shows, except that I am a regular listener.
We here in LA know what he’s done for our community: his show, Which Way LA?, began as a response to the Rodney King riots, as an attempt to give the community a forum in which to reason out the situation as an alternative to violence. His theme is by John Coltrane, used with permission of the Coltrane family. I think that should tell you something.
I heard most of that show, and the representation of it here is in error. Here’s what I heard: first, the show *began* with the gay father of an adopted daughter talking for *several minutes* (not a minute–that’s just wrong) in the most moving way possible about the transformative difference his daughter had made in his family’s life; so much so that he had been moved to become an activist on behalf of full adoptive rights for gay couples. He described his organization, prompted throughout by helpful clarifying questions from Warren.
The next guest was a person who has responsibilities for adoptions at the Children and Family Services agency in LA–she talked about the difficulties of finding loving parents for foster children and orphans, and made a strong case for extending adoptive rights to gay couples. All this was discussed as a *better alternative* to the kinds of group homes that Penn State’s Sandusky allegedly, apparently, used as a cover for procuring a stream of young victims. The obvious point of this discussion, which both of the first two guests made quite clear, was to illustrate that given the types of abuses that occur in situations like Sandusky’s, we have to overcome prejudices against loving gay couples’ adopting.
Then, because Warren *always* lets opposing views state what they think, we heard from the fundamentalist family organization. Given the number of people in the U.S. who share views like that, don’t you think that is necessary and useful?
It’s also a case of giving someone enough rope to hang himself, and that’s exactly what I heard.
The fundamentalist filibustered and obfuscated for several minutes: yes, Warren let him talk, as he always does, but the effect after the first two guests was to show that this person was a misguided ideologue at best, and more likely a prejudiced moron. You have to remember also where this show is airing: in Santa Monica, CA, one of the most liberal enclaves in the country. We know how to interpret this sort of ideology.
After he’d done, the first two guests came back and calmly refuted every single point he’d made. Warren didn’t do that, and he never would: he’s the moderator, and he’s scrupulously fair. But any intelligent person listening to this show had everything s/he needed to see what the issues are here, and especially who has the best interests of children uppermost in their minds, and who is rigidly parroting an anti-life, anti-love, anti-child ideology. That is the *best* of what news shows can do, and if we only had *anyone* like Warren Olney in the mainstream media, our democracy would be immeasurable improved.
Pam, I understand why you might have been upset at a first hearing, since you’re clearly unfamiliar with Warren’s work; but I urge you, and all readers of this post, to download the podcast of the show (To the Point on iTunes, or at kcrw.com) and judge for yourself if I haven’t given a more accurate account of the show. Please!
I’m familiar with Warren’s work, a former regular listener who was turned away by the To The Point’s increasing “balanced,” mainstream-media friendly way of going about things.
Propagandists and liars are extremely comfortable with the “give someone enough rope to hang himself” approach to journalism, since their aim is not to win arguments but rather to simply be in the game.
A good example of this is the Creationist’s “Teach The Controversy” rhetorical strategy. You can see this media strategy all over the culture – even, and perhaps especially on Olney’s show.
Furthermore, the “balance” is inevitably sought between some centrist, establishment hack and a raving loon.
Not only are you 100% correct, there are gross elements of mis-thinking and outrage-mongering underlying this post that you didn’t mention. I’m too tired to expand on the work you did, so I’ll just say I’m disgusted by this post.
Allow me to agree with you also. Longtime Angelenos know and respect Warren Olney and know that in spite of a clumsy, ill-advised linkage, he’s a straight up journalist who actually IS objective — which, sadly seems to be completely unappreciated by people right and left these days.
Propagandists and liars are always unmasked and typically defeated in actual open debate. To be afraid to confront them in an open forum betrays the same cowardice that the rightwing thrives on. Olney’s show, as modest and ‘mainstream’ as it may seem, is a bulwark against that.
You mean like the propagandists and liars whose Personhood law lost in Mississippi? Or the ones whose anti-union bill was defeated in Ohio?
People can see that their ideas are bullshit when there’s an open debate. There’s no need to be afraid of these idiots having airtime if they are confronted and exposed. It actually does work when the forum is a fair one, and Olney’s show has always been that.
If he doesn’t cheerlead enough for you, that’s another issue, and to each his own.
Here’s your boy, Mr Olney:
Is that what you call fair? Have fun with your fanboyism and Panglossian faith in the mainstream media’s marketplace of ideas.
I’m glad to see that the debate on this thread continued.
I think Pam Spaulding’s read on Olney was ill considered.
I read the following at Huffingtonpost:
Olney quickly issued a statement via the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) apologizing for the incident. “We apologize for any confusion about today’s ‘To the Point,’ which dealt with both the Penn State child-sex scandal and the issue of same-sex couples as foster or adoptive parents,” Olney wrote, noting he planned to clarify the error on Monday’s show. “The connection we intended to make was this: a suspected pedophile backed by a powerful institution was allowed to have foster children, while same-sex couples, who can provide loving families, are often denied that opportunity.”
First, To the Point is produced by his local station and Public Radio International, which is NOT affiliated to NPR. PRI distributes many shows which local NPR stations can subscribe to, but to my knowledge, is NOT owned by NPR.
Second, my local stations don’t air this show, so I didn’t have a chance to listen to the show. However… for Mr. Olney to even *allow* an avowed hate group to even spew their bile on the airwaves is irresponsible! Would he allow a Neo-Nazi group to be on the show if it discusses a topic dealing with Israel, or the Klan if it deals with a racial issue? I bet not!
Third, as Tongorad said above — Mr. Olney linked the two in his introduction! That right there showed that Mr. Olney’s so-called impartiality was severely lacking. If he wanted to talk about the PSU scandal with the bigot, that’s fine. But he *never* should’ve linked the two on the outset as he did.
Fourth, I hope the outrage and reaction causes Mr. Olney to rethink his “impartiality”. You don’t allow a bigot and a hatemonger on as “balance” unless you’re prepared to pay the piper. They will do anything and everything to twist, pervert and distort the topic, and then will trumpet their success in getting on a nationally-syndicated radio show, and thus further legitimizing their cause.
Fifth, I host a radio show as well (“TransTalk” on WFAL Mondays from 4-5pm ET), and I’ve been in the business off and on since the mid 80s. I know damn well if I’m going to have an opponent of one of my positions on the air, they’ll know from the onset they’ll be respected, but their positions will be challenged.
If the opponent comes up with some crazy or wild claim, they’ll be challenged as to where they found it, or the source. They won’t be able just to spout a sewer of lies and untruths and get away with it. Mr. Olney was severely lacking that judgment in this instance.
Yes, but of course they couldn’t have children if they never had sex. I think it can be inferred that they at least tried once since they’ve been married since the 60s. But I get your point, he is more then likely using her as a screen for his other activities as many paedophiles do. That’s what I meant by my “complexities” comment.
Looks like we’re not changing many minds here. That you have to suggest that those making angry comments here actually listen to the broadcast in question may account for their misguided tone.
reread the post. I SAID the lead in was clumsy and ill-advised. Knowing Olney’s work in the past this sounded very much like a mistake to me, and indeed, he’s apologized and will address it on his show Monday.
But I know all this is falling on deaf ears.
I’m guessing Holocaust deniers will be chatting with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League next on this man’s show.