All you really need is the proper ideological stamp of approval. That is, all you really need is to share the same political, social and ideological views as most others in the MSM. If you are to the left, secular, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Western, muddle-headed about Islam, and heavily into Political Correctness – among other things - you stand a very good chance indeed of making it into the MSM and rising in the ranks.
Of course in the old days one actually had a bit of balance here. Not too long ago you actually read both sides of a debate in the MSM. I even had articles – not just letters, but whole length article – published in the MSM, even articles criticising the homosexual juggernaut. I had an article in the Melbourne Age for example in July 1994 attacking the idea of homosexual parenting. In September 1996 I had an article critiquing the sex-fiend Kinsey in the Australian.
Many other articles of mine made it into print during the previous decade. But that was then, this is now. Today it is nearly impossible to get something similar into the MSM. I have offered numerous articles to the press over the past few years, but it has been quite some time since any was accepted. It seems there are two options here: either my writing skills have really taken a turn for the worse over the past decade or so, or the MSM has cemented it secular left stance, and is simply refusing to accept any contrary views on some of these hot potato issues. If it is the latter option, there is a name for it: it is called censorship.
Consider as a typical example of jaundiced journalism a recent opinion piece in the SMH by Lisa Pryor entitled, "Here's an idea: what if the Government introduced voluntary gay marriage?" It had all the elements of a great MSM piece: short on facts, long on ad hominem attacks; short on logical argument, long on twisted thinking; short on morality, long on perversity.
It was all about – and I know this will really floor you – the acceptance of homosexuality. That only makes six trillion, 469 million pro-homosexuality articles in the MSM in the past decade or so. And it was a typical PC fluff piece, full of misinformation, distortion and rhetoric. Indeed, I was so taken by what a wretched article it was, that I began my letter to the editor of the SMH with these words:
"Here's an idea: what if journalists actually used logical arguments instead of ad hominem attacks, non-sequiturs and red herrings? The juvenile piece by Ms Pryor shows that for some people misrepresenting and vilifying one's opponents is preferred to actually dealing with substantive arguments."
Ms Pryor resorts to the usual gutter tactic of not actually addressing the arguments of her opponents, but simply smearing them instead. Attacking the person is always a lot easier than dealing with the argument. So guess what: we learn in this piece that everyone who disagrees with her is a "bigot".
Well there you go. We all don't like bigots now do we? Ms Pryor informs us that anyone who challenges her and opposes same-sex marriage is simply a bigot. That's a pretty good way to short-circuit a debate. After all, we shouldn't have to deal with bigots - just keep demonising them.
But in addition to being mere name calling, this charge is simple quite illogical. Simply affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman is not in the least being bigoted. To affirm the heterosexual nature of marriage is of course no more bigoted that to affirm that parliamentary voting is for adults, not children; that a newspaper opinion piece is for people, not horses; and that the Sydney Roosters is for rugby players, not jockeys.
Marriage has always been a social institution concerned with regulating human sexuality and rearing the next generation. If people don't like the inherent limitations of marriage, redefining it out of existence is not the answer.
And Ms Pryor is being completely disingenuous when she claims: "Under my novel proposal, bigots would be free to keep marrying as they wish. Fundamentalist figures would still be free to preach, during marriage ceremonies, about how in God's eyes marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman is an abomination, how sexual love is something to be saved for the wedding night, and all those other things heterosexual couples go through the motions of believing because they want to marry in a building with high ceilings and a low cover charge."
This of course is sheer nonsense. Creating a new right always entails new obligations. If we pull a right out of the hat for same-sex marriage, that will mean society will have a duty to see that right realised. Anyone refusing to go down that path will of course then be dealt with by the full force of the law.
This is occurring throughout the Western world, where people who dare to counter the militant homosexual activists are being denied their rights and freedoms. That sounds like real bigotry to me.
And she of course is out of her depth when she starts informing us what biblical Christianity is supposed to be all about: "Most Christians, I would like to think, see love and acceptance as the most important elements of the Christian message."
Sorry, but Christianity is first and foremost about truth, not sloppy sentimentalism and PC morality. The truth is God is a holy and righteous God who hates sin absolutely, but loves sinners with a passion. The Christian message is that God has sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, and to make a way for us to be set free from our sinful addictions and our addictive sins.
Loving and accepting what God calls sinful is the very opposite of the Christian message. Letting people know that they can be set free from sin and self is the heart of the Christian message.
Her concluding line is as inane and irrational as the rest of her article: "For those who are still concerned, here is a better dilemma to ponder: what is so Christian about an institution which lets in straight atheists and even Satanists, but excludes gay Christians?"
She is once again altogether wrong, regardless of what she means by "lets in". If she means by that phrase, church membership, then I am not aware of any church that lets in Satanists or atheists. But if she means letting church doors be open to one and all, to allow them to hear the gospel, then of course not only Satanists, atheists, but homosexuals as well can and do come to churches all the time.
Sadly the entire article is filled with such lame and tired rhetoric. It adds nothing to the debate. Indeed, it actually works to shut down debate. Ms Pryor thinks she is so right that she does not have to actually address facts, evidence and argument. Simply throw mud, and hope that has made your case.
Well, that may be good enough for the SMH and much of the MSM, but it is not good enough in the real world where ideas matter and truth is important. Which is why there will always be alternate media outlets, such as this one.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/heres-an-idea-what-if-the-government-introduced-voluntary-gay-marriage-20090619-cr4f.html