Turning a gay teen straight ... on "Good Morning America"- Page 4

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 5:11pm

thank you, jrb. You know the saying, "Always look on the bright side of life!"

[lildogs]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 5:11pm

Good post, TVBoy...I was thinking that a story like this probably comes out as a wash:

You have people were thinking of sending their children there who see what's going on and change their minds, and then you also have the parents who say: "That's just what little Johnny needs"

I hope that more see this place for the bedlam it is, so I think GMA.

I know that as a young boy in rural Oklahoma and Texas, any mention of homosexuality immediately got my interest. As Oprah once mentioned, black people in this country once reacted the same way when they saw black people on tv. So if nothing else, maybe some little boy or girl sees a real homo on tv that isn't on Jerry and sees that he or she is not alone or a freak.

[Adamaddict]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 10:32pm

*siigghhh*

Okay, all I'm going to say is... If God called on humanity to populate the earth and made two seperate genders to do that, don't you think homosexuality had to be man's own choice?

Posted: 7/28/05 at 10:43pm

siggghhh.....NO!

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 10:45pm

Our proclivities or inclinations are a result of nurture and/or nature. How (or not) we act upon those impulses is man's choice.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 1:50am

Okay, all I'm going to say is... If God called on humanity to populate the earth and made two seperate genders to do that, don't you think homosexuality had to be man's own choice?

But then who would control all that reckless breeding and design everyone's pretty dresses?

[eslgr8]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:26am

Adam Addict, you state: "If God called on humanity to populate the earth and made two seperate genders to do that, don't you think homosexuality had to be man's own choice?" I would respond to that by saying that I don't believe that "God called on humanity to populate the earth and made two seperate genders to do that." You would probably respond that the Bible says so and that might be the end of the discussion for you. The problem with religious extremists (fantatics/bigots, however you want to describe them) is that they believe the Bible has only one interpretation, theirs, and all their "logic" begins from there, where in reality, very little actualy thought or reasoning is taking place. I'm not staying that Adam Addict is this type of religious extremist, but the statement he/she made sounds very much like those made by the "religious" right.
Updated On: 7/29/05 at 11:26 AM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:35am

Oh Adam...

*shakes head*


If all God wanted man to do was procreate, that would make the human race nothing more than a swarm of locusts.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:36am

Oh, no, let's catch everyone up with the knowledge that despite adamaddict's being a huge fan of a certain musical featuring pop singing gay/drag/HIV characters, she is indeed anti-gay and has made several comments to the like in the past here.

I would attempt to respond to her comment, but it would be pointless.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:44am

Why are we all jumping on AdamAddict yet letting EnchantedHunter/MusicMan's comments go?

[bella cantato]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:47am

Adam, I TOTALLY agree!

But obviously since the only purpose of sex is to procreate, once a person has sex with another they might as well go their seperate ways, right? I mean, now that there are houses and shelter provided for many people, relationships based on more than just physicality are rather outdated... for women no longer need protection in the wild during childbirth and raising a child, etc. I mean, if God only created human beings to have relationships so that they could procreate, we might as well skip this "love" thing and just jump on each other like jack rabbits so that we can have as many children as possible!!

Right?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:52am

Rath--no, you are correct, but Enchanted Hunter is so perverse and ridiculous on this board, I choose to ignore his posts.

Bella--you are right! And why would two heteros even want to get married if they are not fertile? Or if (shock! the horror!) they don't even want children?

Why did God make gay animals?---and almost every species has em!

WHY would I choose to be something that has attracted the hatred and scorn and second class citizenship rights that goes along with being gay in the oh so progressive land of the free??

[bella cantato]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:57am

Because, jrb, you obviously want to just make yourself sexually attracted to someone that you really aren't, just so that you can be sinful and evil and unnatural and all that jazz. Oh and P.S., God hates you for loving another human being.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:59am

oh, no, bella--God doesn't hate me because I'm gay. God hates me so he made me gay.

[bella cantato]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:01pm

Wow okay. Thanks for clearing that up!!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:02pm

You can thank Fred Phelps for that. That man is GENUIS!

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:07pm

And what if...JUST what if...there is no God. I know so many of us like to have the arguments from a place of 'God is...' or 'God isn't...' just assuming that God does in fact exist. If that's what you believe, dandy. But to take that as the starting point is a little difficult for me because, indeed, we have a sh*tload more proof of the existence of homosexuality than we do of God. Hell...we have more proof that friggin' Paris Hilton exists than God exists. So...to just say 'If this is God's purpose...' means your assuming EVERYONE has to come at it from that side. And, as of right now, in America, we can believe anything we'd like. We can even believe that God doesn't exist. Ya know...the term 'Under God' wasn't added to the the Pledge of Allegience until the Red Scare. The only word to appear on all US currency since we've actually had US currency is 'liberty' (I got THAT Trivial Pursuit question wrong...I said 'God'). I don't know WHY I'm going on about this...except to say if you believe, GREAT. If not, GREAT. But let's not start a discussion with a certitude of God's plan when some may not even recognize her existence.

And I would like to clarify my feelings on the Shepard piece that aired on 20/20. I may have mispoke. Journalists go after a story and report on it. Perhaps I just don't like the story they reported. In fact, I don't even think there's a 'story' there. But that's just my opinion. But another opinion I hold is that it's morally reprehensible to abet a convicted murder in breaking the agreement he had with Matthew Shepard's father that allowed him to escape the death penalty if he promised never to speak to the media and tell his side of the story. I used to like Elizabeth Vargas. Not anymore.

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 12:07 PM

[bella cantato]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:08pm

The only thing I can do when it comes to people like that is to recognize that they are really, truly unhappy... and doing all in their power to make others unhappy...

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:14pm

Oh...I don't like MusicMan...uh...I mean...uh...TheEnchantedHunter...not at all.

But he's right about this. You do have to choose to act on your impulses and live as an out gay man or woman. Of course, if you don't choose that, I'll think you're a coward and relish the fact that you're living in misery while I'm having a fabulous time and having lots of great gay sex.

[eyeonbroadway]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:14pm

Well said, robbiej. If there is a God, I can't imagine that he/she gives a rat's ass how and with whom we exercise...

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 1:45pm

Rath, we aren't saying anything about EnchantedHunter because no one really takes anything seriously from a person named Vivian Darkbloom.

And can I just say that Fred Phelphs likes to take it up the @ss.

[TVBoy]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:14pm

In response to robbie's statement... Out of the entire Matthew Shepard tragedy, it's Elizabeth Vargas you choose not to like??? (Neither Elizabeth nor ABC News held anyone at gunpoint, forcing them to talk.) As I said in my PM to you, which apparently prompted your clarification, don't hate the messenger, hate the source. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Elizabeth wouldn't have a story to report, if there weren't someone there telling her the story.

Also, by saying you don't believe the Shepard robbery angle is a story, I assume you would also believe the hate crime angle isn't a story?

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:14 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:40pm

Aw come now, TV...your making a big leap, thinking I choose to dislike Vargas over everyone else involved in the Matthew Shepard murder.

The reason I call the the robbery angle a non-story is because it was explored by the police...and, from what I gather, dropped. A botched robbery? You pistol whip someone and then lynch them against a fence and I (and any rationaol person) am supposed to believe is a robbery gone wrong? The symbolism of that act is so obvious that, were this a fictional account, we might all roll our eyes at how heavy-handed it was. That story is just not credible (neither was that girlfriend in the interview)...at all.

But these are all my opinions on a very touchy subject. What is not an opinion, though, is the fact that this news report allowed Aaron McKinney to violate the promise he made to Dennis Shepard to never tell his story to the press. That promise probably kept him from lethal injection. I find that disgusting.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:05pm

robbie, since he broke his word, can we kill him now? please?

and what if god was one of us? just a slob like one of us? just a stranger on the board trying to make a valid point.

i think joe's special is gonna get great ratings and generate a sh*tload of controversy resulting in a gop introduced idea to re-visit the 18th amendment.

but all those folks who scream for this kinda thing not to be shown, isn't it a little less than tolerant to demand that people not even speak about some things? that doesn't sound very open-minded at all. it's kinda like the maniacs on my side of the aisle who scream for harry potter books to be banned. anytime you start saying that there are things that should not be on the air, you're on a very slippery slope. i usually prefer to let the loonies have some air time to show just how insane they really are. better to know who they are than to not know, isn't it?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:58pm

GLAAD VIEWER’S GUIDE TO:
20/20’S “A MURDER IN LARAMIE: THE MYSTERY AND THE MYTH”
10 QUESTIONS ABOUT ABC’S 20/20 SHOW ON MATTHEW SHEPARD

1) SOURCES & FACTS 20/20 IGNORED There are several important sources and pieces of information that the 20/20 piece does not acknowledge or explore in its quest to undermine the notion that anti-gay bias contributed to the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.

* There is no discussion of the details of Aaron McKinney's confession to the police, where anti-gay bias is central to his characterization of the events of Oct. 6, 1998. Nor is there any mention of Rob DeBree, the investigator who took that statement and was one of the key witnesses as to the investigation and the confession at McKinney’s trial.

* No mention of the plea bargain that spared McKinney's life, nor any mention of Judy and Dennis Shepard's role in that. And no mention of the provision of that plea bargain where McKinney and his attorneys agreed not to speak to the press about this case.

* No mention of the more than 200 interviews over two years conducted by Moisés Kaufman and the Tectonic Theater Project for The Laramie Project -- nor the fact that some of the accounts offered 20/20 conflict with those offered Kaufman.


QUESTION: Don't 20/20's decisions to turn a blind eye to the facts of this case, to not include interviews with those who can substantiate them, and to evade any discussion of the ethical issues involved in circumventing one of the key provisions of McKinney's plea bargain raise some serious doubts as to the credibility of this piece?

2) AARON MCKINNEY’s LACK OF CREDIBILITY 20/20's piece relies heavily on the perceived credibility of Aaron McKinney, who is now claiming to have lied about the role anti-gay bias played in his decision to target and kill Shepard. Yet it also encourages audiences to view as untruthful McKinney’s claims that he did not know Shepard prior to the crime and that he did not have sexual relations with other men.


QUESTION: How can 20/20 rely so heavily on a source whose statements need to be seen by the audience as truthful in some situations and untruthful in others?

3) KRISTEN PRICE’S LACK OF CREDIBILITY Kristen Price – who now claims she made up the story about McKinney's homophobic rage against Shepard – not only shared her story with 20/20 back in 1998, but she also testified about it in October 1999 at McKinney's trial.


QUESTION: Assuming Price can be taken seriously when she says she lied back in 1998 and 1999, did she commit perjury in McKinney’s murder trial? Why does 20/20 not explore this? And why does 20/20 put forward as fact the statements of someone who’s admitted to deceiving and lying to them in the past?

4) THE CREDIBILITY OF OTHER KEY SOURCES 20/20's case rests on interviews with witnesses like:

* Doc O' Connor, who, according to interviews conducted for The Laramie Project and for Vanity Fair, met Shepard only four days before his murder (casting serious doubt on his claim, reported by 20/20 reporter Elizabeth Vargas, that “Matthew was a friend close enough to share some of his secrets, like Matthew’s worries about HIV”) – and who was viewed as so lacking in credibility that neither the prosecution nor the defense called him as a witness at McKinney’s murder trial;

* Tina LaBrie, who knew Shepard for only a short time and whose characterizations of Shepard have been questioned by others who knew him;

* "Jean”, an anonymous bartender 20/20 does not identify by last name, who claims to have seen Shepard and McKinney together;

* Ryan “Bop” (phonetic spelling – actual spelling of last name unknown at this time), a former drug-using associate of McKinney’s who claims to have given McKinney a .357 Magnum (the same kind of gun used in Shepard’s murder) in exchange for drugs;
* Elaine Baker, who claims to have spent an evening in the back of O' Connor's limo with McKinney and Shepard months before his murder-- contradicting O'Connor's statements to Vanity Fair and to the Tectonic Theater Project that he first met Matthew only four days before his death).


20/20’s case also centers on the newly reinvented stories of a convicted murderer and a source who claims to have lied to 20/20 in the past and, if true, has potentially committed perjury as well.


QUESTION: Taken separately and together, how can a set of witnesses this unreliable be used as the foundation for any credible news story?

5) LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR DRUG MOTIVE 20/20 does not put forward a single piece of solid evidence to back its assertion that drug use was the primary factor in Matthew Shepard’s murder. Their entire case is based on speculation; sensational repetition of unsubstantiated claims; interviews with people like Aaron McKinney and Kristen Price, whose credibility is extremely suspect; and contextually questionable soundbites from the prosecutor in the case.


QUESTION: Why would 20/20 so aggressively – and sensationally – attempt to rewrite the factual record of this case without a single piece of incontrovertible evidence to support their claims?

6) LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT SHEPARD KNEW HIS KILLERS 20/20's promotion of the show focuses on whether Shepard knew McKinney and Henderson prior to his murder. In the final moments of the third segment, Vargas says, "There are a lot of facts the mythology surrounding this case got wrong. If you think Matthew Shepard never met his killer before that night, you may have to think again." Yet 20/20 presents no credible evidence that they did, only the accounts of three sources – Ryan Bop (sp?), Elaine Baker and “Jean” – whose credibility is extremely questionable.


QUESTION: Why, with nothing but speculation or contradictory information by unreliable sources to support it, does 20/20 make this sensationalistic angle one of the tentpoles of its report and its publicity strategy?

7) 20/20’S DEPICTION OF MATTHEW SHEPARD Listen carefully as 20/20 depicts Matthew Shepard as a drug user, troubled, depressed, suicidal, etc., based only on accounts from questionable sources.


QUESTION: Why would 20/20 feel it necessary to characterize the life of Matthew Shepard in this way when the depiction has no connection to the show’s attempt to advance a new motive for Shepard’s murderers?

8 ) PREVIOUS EXAMINATIONS OF DRUG THEORY NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY 20/20 It is well known that Harper's magazine published an in-depth (and GLAAD Media Award-winning) cover story on Shepard’s murder back in 1999 that considered how methamphetamine abuse may have intersected with the homophobia and other factors that contributed to Shepard’s murder. McKinney’s alleged use of methamphetamines was also raised as part of his defense strategy -- an angle that was reported on extensively in the media.


QUESTION: Why does 20/20 suggest that the possible influence of drugs/ methamphetamines on this case has not been previously explored by the media? And why does it not acknowledge these previous examinations?

9) JUDY SHEPARD’S INTERVIEW WITH 20/20 Elizabeth Vargas interviewed Judy Shepard ostensibly to get her reactions to the claims made by those Vargas had interviewed for 20/20. Yet Judy’s soundbites make it appear as though she did not have any problem with 20/20’s claims. Also, Judy Shepard’s interview was conducted on the condition that 20/20 simultaneously interview Sean Maloney, Judy’s attorney and longtime adviser. Maloney was also critical of 20/20’s premise and its decision to enable McKinney to violate his plea bargain agreement, but none of Maloney’s comments – made on the record to 20/20 – are broadcast.


At the end of the piece, Vargas attempts to suggest that Judy Shepard even agrees with the premise of 20/20’s piece by setting up (in voice-over) a soundbite from Judy by saying, "Even Matthew's mother says her son's life and death have been mythologized." Yet Judy's quote only focuses on her perception that her son was an ordinary young man.


QUESTION: Why didn’t 20/20 broadcast the critical comments made by Judy Shepard, and why were the facts, comments and criticisms offered by her attorney in their joint interview so completely ignored by the producers?

NOTE: The final broadcast version differs from the press preview copy in that Judy Shepard has one soundbite challenging the assertion that her son's murder was not motivated by hate. Also, Sean Maloney now appears briefly in the segment, offering a broad quotation about hate crimes in America.

10) 20/20 DOES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE DOING. 20/20's premise is that Matthew Shepard's murder is more complicated than it seems. But their piece drives the viewer in the opposite direction, attempting to sell audiences on a simplistic notion that if McKinney and Henderson were under the influence of drugs, then anti-gay bias could not have played any role in their decision to target, beat and murder Shepard.

QUESTION: Clearly, there may have been factors in addition to anti-gay bias involved in this case. But why is 20/20’s piece so determined not to examine the complexity of this crime, but instead to develop an inaccurate single-cause motive that runs counter to the facts of this case.

Published Nov. 24, 2004

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 04:58 PM