TOO HOT FOR TV?

June 2000
		Does radio host "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger propagate hate? Should she be able to take her views to television? Keven Bellows, vice president and general manager of Premiere Radio Networks, Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and Joan Garry, executive director of GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, respond to your questions.

Forum introduction Shouldn't the audience decide whether or not the show will succeed? How can Jerry Springer's TV show exist while Dr. Laura's elicits such controversy? Are gay rights groups stepping on rights of religious expression? What about defending freedom of speech? Would similar views on other groups be tolerated? Can there be a meaningful debate on such moral issues?     June 15, 2000: Debating Dr. Laura. July 26, 1999: A look at diversity in television programs. Online Forum: Experts answer viewer questions about diversity on television. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of media issues.     Dr. Laura Schlessinger GLAAD TomPaine.com StopDrLaura.com

Carol Frisk of Ypsilanti, MI asks: While I will stand side by side with any gay and lesbian organization when it comes to anyone being beaten or otherwise mistreated, I agree that Biblically homosexuality is a sin. I acknowledge others' rights to disagree with me on this subject. But I believe that gay rights groups have gone too far and are now trying to mold society into intolerance for my belief system. Should GLAAD be able to claim my beliefs are misinformation? Aren't gay rights groups infringing on my rights of religion?   Keven Bellows responds: Peaceful protests do not infringe on anyone's rights. However, calling for silencing someone because of their religious beliefs is antithetical to the American way. The most distressing thing about the current controversy surrounding Dr. Laura is that the gay activists would have us believe that the free expression of one's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality is "hate speech". That is absurd, but worse, dangerous.   Lucy Dalglish responds: Of course GLAAD is entitled to claim your beliefs are based on misinformation. Under the law, they are allowed to hold this belief, just as you are entitled to practice your religion and believe that their lifestyle is a sin. By expressing their views, how are they infringing on your right to believe what you believe? You will hold those beliefs regardless of what GLAAD says say about them, right?   Joan Garry responds: Your question goes to a common confusion which Schlessinger perpetuates: she mixes her religious convictions with "science" and packages both as the only truth. Schlessinger presents herself as a mental health practitioner qualified to give life advice to her audience. She is not. Schlessinger's doctorate is not medical, and she is not a member of either the psychiatric or psychological communities. Her opinions on sexual orientation are personal. Yet she cloaks her moral pronouncements in a pseudo-clinical context and uses psychiatric terminology and diagnoses to suggest that lesbians and gay men are disordered or mentally ill. Interestingly, Schlessinger has repeatedly claimed to know that being gay or lesbian is the result of a biological error - hardly a "moral" position. Yet when probed for more information, admits that she is not an expert in this area, retreating back to her insistence that her convictions are rooted in religion. GLAAD never has attacked or questioned Schlessinger's faith - only her exploitation of her credentials and her deceptive mix of religious condemnation and discredited science. She has chosen to call her program ''Dr. Laura,'' not ''Rabbi Schlessinger.'' If Schlessinger marketed herself as a religious leader, everyone -- including us -- would have a fair understanding of her platform. But she does not.