Franken questioned Minnery about his citing a Department of Health and Human Services report that stated, in essence, that children do better in a two-parent household. Minnery had assumed the two parents had to be of opposite sexes, when in fact they did not.
Minnery replied, "I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife."
"It doesn't," said Franken, getting a laugh from the audience.
Sen. Franken then chastised Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families, and stated, essentially, that if Minnery had so misinterpreted the information in the HHS report, then all of his testimony was subject to question.
Naturally NPR took a strong stand on this. Their opinion? Sen. Franken is rude.
Ms. Carrie Daklin wrote a stinging opinion piece for Minnesota Public Radio covering this exchange. She opens with no less than eight paragraphs discussing how hard it is to testify in court before attacking Sen. Franken over his cross-examination:
Franken questioned Minnery about his citing a Department of Health and Human Services report that stated, in essence, that children do better in a two-parent household. I think most people would agree with the basic premise that two parents can provide more income, and more emotional support, to their children -- since, we hope, the spouses are supporting each other in kind. As a single parent, I know what it is like to be at the helm alone.
Still, Franken didn't end there, . . .
If you weren't already wondering about Ms. Daklin impartiality, the answer is now obvious: SHE ISN'T. Knock out the last two sentences in that first paragraph and see what kind of sense it makes:
Franken questioned Minnery about his citing a Department of Health and Human Services report that stated, in essence, that children do better in a two-parent household.
Still, Franken didn't end there, . . .
Uh, what? The phrase "didn't end there" implies Mr. Franken was doing something obnoxious. He questioned a witness during a hearing, but no! He didn't stop there! HE KEPT GOING! He "baited Minnery" about the report, ruthlessly pointing out that, as was clearly stated, it studied two-parent households, not opposite-sex parent households.
Ms. Daklin then spends eight more paragraphs excusing Mr. Minnery's lie. Lots of people would assume studies about parents are about heteros! she says. Minnery's old, and old people make mistakes! she says. "Everyone has a right to their beliefs," she says.
Which, you know, I can't really argue with, though I'm not sure it covers lying to Congress.
Needless to say, a controversy erupted. Commenters on the MPR website said things like, "Wow. This post is embarrassing," "Minnery was caught lying to congress and you are worrying about Franken missing an opportunity to be kind?", and "Who is behind the gay bashing at Minnesota Public Radio?" The National Organization for Marriage repeated her words.
Three weeks later, Ms. Daklin wrote a followup. This time around she attacked the left for the "hate mail and really vicious comments" she received. Her words were "taken completely out of context," "vilifying" her. She wasn't a homophobe: no, her message was "better manners."
Once again, the National Organization for Marriage jumped in, repeating their role as victim. "[W]e hope that the experience may have served to confirm for [Ms. Daklin] how much we need brave voices to continue calling for civility in this debate," they said.
Needless to say, the comments to Ms. Daklin's new post didn't change much. "[I]t's too bad that you either didn't read, or completely missed the point of, several of the serious and heartfelt comments to your previous column," reads one. "If you do not know who the National Organization for Marriage is, then you have NO BUSINESS writing the column you did on Franken," reads another. "I don't buy what you are selling. You want to say that your first article was just a call for civility. How could Senator Franken beat up on that nice old man? That nice old man is a professional bigot who works for an organization that rakes in millions of dollars fighting against the rights of gay people," reads a third.
Well, clearly Minnesota Public Radio recognizes a controversy, and they aren't afraid to jump in feet first.
As of today, all the comments are gone.
Comment archive one.
Comment archive two.
No comments:
Post a Comment