July 20, 2007

From the Desk of Phil Burress
President of Citizens for Community Values
Citizens’ E-Courier · July 20, 2007

Did anyone else find it interesting that CNN and other news media outlets are allowing pimps, prostitutes and pornographers to throw stones at people they think are hypocrites?

Recently it was made public that Louisiana Senator David Vitter used what they called an escort service (a code word for businesses that offer prostitutes). No one can defend David Vitter’s actions and as a man who understands sin he must deal with that transgression with God, then his wife, family, and finally the voters.

However, the people I saw on television who were attacking Vitter were Larry Flynt, the DC Madam, and Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Did I get this right? A pornographer like Larry Flynt who sexually abused two of his daughters, and a madam (pimp) who supplies prostitutes are criticizing Vitter, when these two people themselves have engaged in illegal sexual activity?

On top of that, the press use people like these two as their “news” source? At no time did I see the media question either Flynt or Palfrey about their transgressions and their illegal activities that they are engaged in. Why the free pass?

In an interesting side-note, Marriott Hotels, one of the nation’s largest suppliers of in-room hard core pornography, was the hotel of choice for Madam Palfrey’s prostitutes. (Family Research Council President Tony Perkins knows David Vitter well. I suggest you read what Tony has to say on Vitter.)

Cincinnati Enquirer reporter “unloads on state Rep. Brinkman”

Brinkman nor the reporter were present but you’d never know it from reading the paper

Sharon Coolidge must have felt inspired, painting for her readers a blow-by-blow picture of the courtroom guilty plea by two women for for engaging in election falsification. But the focus of the piece really was all about how Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman unleashed a tirade on Tom Brinkman who had hired them to collect the signatures on a petition effort.

The front-page, above-the-fold creative writing by Coolidge put you right there in the courtroom gallery. Even the photo the Enquirer placed on their website (see picture) easily leads one to imagine Brinkman right there receiving the thrashing.

Turns out, neither the representative nor the reporter heard the misinformed lecture from the judge. Brinkman was 500 miles from the courthouse when it took place. And Coolidge concocted the story by reading a transcript of the proceedings and from other erroneous articles published on the issue by previous reporters. (For sake of brevity, we will refrain from enumerating the errors. Hopefully, the Enquirer will note them in the requested corrections.)

WHAT? Then why would a newspaper do this? One has to wonder. Strange how just reading something can make you feel a certain way about a person or an issue, or how it can actually lead you to believe something that just isn’t true without you realizing it.

The details of this case or any future elections aside, Tom Brinkman has a long history of integrity and honorable service to this community and to his family. He has consistently stood for pro-life and pro-family values. And he certainly didn’t deserve this kind of nonsense from either one of the offenders.

Radio Talk Show Hosts Gone Wild

You know how talk radio works, right? A talk show host searches the news for hot topics to discuss with listeners. They chat a while on one issue, take a very controversial position, and maybe the phones will start ringing off the wall. If not, they punt and go to the next topic until they do develop a controversy with callers.

Sometimes they really do believe what they say when they take a side, and I suppose, sometimes it’s just for the theater. But when a couple of morning talk show hosts in Cincinnati recently found their issue, they appear to have gone a little over the top.

The issue: virtual child pornography. It’s the kind of photographs made with such sophisticated computer technology these days that the eye cannot distinguish it from real photos. It’s all evil regardless of the manufacturing. What’s worse is that the U.S. Supreme Court said it’s legal.

The talk show hosts seemed to focus on the possible benefits of this kind of child porn since no child was actually harmed in the creation of it, and because it could very likely provide a cathartic effect similar to methadone for heroine addicts and thereby prevent the actual child molestation.

Say what?! Don’t these guys know that what someone sees and hears eventually affects their thoughts, attitudes, and behavior? Yes, we all respond differently to the myriad of media messages. But this stuff is 100% poison and most often results in extreme anti-social behavior. If they want to deny the impact of media, I suggest they refund all of the station’s advertising dollars since listeners aren’t affected, right?

Relative to child pornography’s harm on people and society, I suggest they read the New York Times piece below. Even the child molesters in this article would call in to disagree these talk show hosts.

New York Times: “Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting”