I have never been one to use my blog as a way of conveying politics, religion, etc. and I'm not going to start today. I will, however, be walking a lot closer to the line today.
Many news sources have posted negative articles on an interview/article involving Phil Robertson and his subsequent ban from the hit television program Duck Dynasty. I am here to try to clear some of this backlash. I will not be doing this by way of opinion. I will be doing this by way of showing people how poorly these news sources have been reporting.
First off, you really must read the GQ interview/article to understand the situation. Read all three pages, please. If you don't you'll miss a heck of a lot.
Now read any of the various negative reporting. There's Huffington Post (under the Gay Voices section, I may add), LA Times, TV Guide, and a few more.
These news sources are quoting the pieces of the GQ article that they want to quote in order to express their viewpoint. This is blatant misreporting. Do we not all agree that misreporting is wrong?
News sources have decided that it isn't important to quote the question that prompted one of Mr. Robertson's most challenged statements. GQ asked, "What, in your mind, is sinful?"
They have somehow decided that this quote is unimportant: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” This is important, don't you agree?
Tone, while important in fiction, should, in almost all schools of learning, be kept as neutral as possible in an article/interview of the kind published by GQ. This is clearly not the case in this situation. The word choice is nearly libelous.
Misreporting, especially hand-picking quotes and then mixing them with heavily-biased wording, is wrong. Who dares challenge this statement?