OneNewsNow whines about Prop 8's re-wording as "biased"

Does anyone else think that is a little hypocritical?

Jeff Johnson, of Don Wildmon's OneNewsNow reports:

"The ballot title originally approved for Proposition 8 described the proposal as an amendment 'to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' But after homosexual activists failed to get the initiative removed from the ballot, Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the title to describe the proposal as amending the state constitution to 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.' The description also claims, with no supporting evidence, that the state will lose 'several tens of millions of dollars' if the measure is passed."

Johnson goes on to quote attorney Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, who states that this language will likely cost "their" side (however it be defined) votes in the election.

Johnson states, "The attorney explains that although the change can be appealed, there is little chance such an appeal against the obviously biased language of the new ballot title and description would be successful."

Um... errr...

Coming from a website that calls the entire gay population "homosexual activists," repeatedly misinterprets scientific research to discredit gay people, and engages in otherwise shoddy, dishonest journalism, the only thing I find "biased" is Johnson's reporting.

In fact, it's kind of the epitome of irony to claim "bias" for calling a proposed amendment to prevent same-sex couples from marrying...well, uh...an amendment to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

In other news, I find it extremely disturbing that OneNewsNow, in an article discussing the Tennessee Church Shooting victims, also felt the need to mention, "The Unitarian Universalist church advocates women's rights and gay rights and has provided sanctuary for political refugees."

To be fair, they followed the sentence with "It also has fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site."

Yet, I am not giving the author of that article any credit. By choosing to state that the church endorses women's rights, gay rights, and political refugees (which are the antithesis of extremely conservative, fundamentalist groups like the AFA and its members), they are letting their readers know what they really think of the shootings. And I am positive that the Unitarian Universalist Church's acceptance of women and gays makes the shootings and murders more acceptable in the eyes of the AFA and its members.

I'm just sayin'. One wacko conservative already muderered people. How much more reckless journalism are Christian fundamentalists going to engage in before even more innocent lives are lost as a result of scapegoating "The Liberal" or the "The Gays?"


Don Wildmon ("a-der")