
The Washington Post (4/5/22) spent 12 paragraphs detailing what “conservatives say” before getting around to quoting someone with another point of view.
As the GOP pushes—and passes—broad laws to prohibit books, discussions or mental health services on issues of gender identity or sexual orientation, under the absurd guise of preventing sexual abuse, the Washington Post is laying out a welcome mat for the party’s anti-LGBTQ+ agenda.
Under the headline, “Teachers Who Mention Sexuality Are ‘Grooming’ Kids, Conservatives Say,” Washington Post writers Hannah Natanson and Moriah Balingit (4/5/22) spent the first 12 paragraphs of their article describing and quoting the right-wing claims that teachers talking about gender identity or sexual orientation—and those who support them—”want children primed for sexual abuse.”
These malicious accusations, part of a spreading movement led by Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, have not a shred of truth to them. But they will certainly stifle free speech in classrooms and further endanger LGBTQ+ students, at a time when many are struggling even more than usual because of the pandemic.
It barely matters that the Post brought in some “experts” later to offer the “other side”—that actually talking about these things in fact helps curtail sexual abuse (which in schools primarily happens at the hands of heterosexual male teachers, noted all the way down in the 37th paragraph of the Post article) and bullying against LGBTQ+ kids. In giving the GOP the headline and the (extraordinarily lengthy) lead, Natanson and Balingit gave a bigoted and dangerous campaign the right to frame the story as a debate with two somehow comparable sides.
In this way it’s quite similar, in fact, to a piece Natanson penned last year (7/24/21) about “a war over critical race theory” in Traverse City, Michigan. There, a mock slave auction on Snapchat, along with posts like “all Blacks should die,” served in Natanson’s view to show
how a town grappling with an undeniable incident of racism can serve as fertile ground for the ongoing national war over whether racism is embedded in American society.

Julie Hollar (FAIR.org, 8/2/21): “If a town were being flooded by rain, and some residents insisted that it couldn’t be raining because there have never been any clouds in the sky, would journalists call that a war over whether clouds existed?”
As I noted at the time (FAIR.org, 8/2/21), admitting that the incident was racist but not that racism is undeniably embedded in society is precisely aligned with the right’s framing of the situation, letting them set the narrative. Natanson “balanced” views of BIPOC students experiencing racism (and white students speaking in support of an equity resolution) with white adults insisting, against all evidence, that the town “was never racist.” It’s just “two ways of viewing the world,” she shrugged.
Last week’s “grooming” piece was perhaps even worse, in that not only did they both-sides the issue—which is egregious enough—Natanson and Balingit gave a much bigger spotlight to the bigoted and dangerous “side.” They quoted ten sources defending the “Don’t Say Gay” laws or attacking their opponents, front-loading most of them, and only six opposed—half of whom appeared after the 33rd paragraph, for those who’ve stuck around long enough to hear them. (One academic was also quoted, offering no direct debunking but arguing, among other things, that the right’s strategy is “effective” and “clever.”)
Of those most directly impacted by the bills, no LGBTQ+ students and only one openly LGBTQ+ educator were quoted.

Joe Gantz (Tampa Bay Times, 3/17/22): “These two anti-gay campaigns, 45 years apart, both imagine a problem where there is none in order to stir up fear and prejudice.”
In framing the piece, Natanson and Balingit wrote that the argument over “grooming” “draws on previous tactics adopted by the right to oppose the erosion of traditional gender roles at moments of societal transition, experts say.” As media critic Dan Froomkin (Press Watch, 4/6/22) pointed out, “opposing the erosion of traditional gender roles” is quite a euphemism for the right’s past homophobic and misogynistic campaigns against basic rights for women and lesbians and gays.
It was in Florida, as some rare voices in the media (e.g., Tampa Bay Times, 3/17/22) noted in their “Don’t Say Gay” coverage, that Anita Bryant’s infamous “Save Our Children” campaign was born, a vicious fight led by the religious right against early anti-discrimination laws to protect the rights of lesbians and gays. Rallying behind the claim that such laws would pave the way for gay teachers to “recruit” their young charges, the right stoked a moral panic to roll back these nascent rights.
Today, again, as groups long discriminated against and marginalized are fighting back against the “traditional” gender and racial hierarchies that render them less free than others, the right is pulling out its old moral panic playbook. It’s urgent that the Post stop foregrounding and normalizing the specious right-wing claims behind attacks on LGBTQ+ kids and their teachers—like the parallel attacks on Black kids and their teachers as part of the “anti-CRT” campaign—and start highlighting the incredible harms these attacks cause to democracy, education and already-marginalized youth.
Action:
Please ask the Washington Post to foreground the viewpoints and interests of LGBTQ+ students rather than those of bigots in their coverage of the gender and sexual politics in schools.
Contact:
You can send a message at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost.
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.



The bastards want to force equality to bend over
And the corpress bends over backwards to accommodate them
The WaPO article is news, not advocacy or social welfare activism. Demanding equal every time or constant repudiation whenever you don’t like the views of the people being reported on is flat out absurd.
For that matter, the 4th paragraph plainly disavows the “grooming” accusation, as a right-wing tactic.
Perhaps FAIR needs a media critic?
Emma here Jake and FAIR censored and removed my hours ago (really innocent) comment on your thoughts. This venue has gotten worse than Twitter. Good luck before this reply ‘disappears’.
FAIR’s critique of bothsidesism in coverage of issues like climate change is perfectly valid because these topics are of a technical nature and it’s ludicrous to present an “opposing view” which is objectively wrong. Where they go off the rails is when they apply the same reasoning to ambiguous cultural issues which have a moral dimension. Now these people are wrong because they are immoral and must be silenced to stop the spread of their evil. This presupposes that there is an objective “right” position on an issue, which for FAIR is inevitably the most progressive one being promoted on Twitter. The only exception to this is their excellent coverage of topics relating to Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, which are never touched by the writers of articles like this one.
“Promoted on Twitter” being the crucial phase, because the positions FAIR takes on LGBQT+ and “antiracism” are doctrinaire, not “progressive” per se.
But in the view of this organization (and of course Twitter), dissenters from the right-thinking dogma are necessarily bigots and haters.
The wealthy do not believe in systemic issues and they own the newspapers. If the school system, or economic system, is hurting people, they find one person and make them the story. No deep dive allowed. There are no deep pockets ginning up awful and dangerous moral panics, there are just convervative people.
Nice way to encapsulate what is disturbingly obvious to those of us in the South.
Read the Florida bill. It only limits teachers from talking to kids in grades k-3 about sexual topics. What is controversial about that?
The state has no power to “limit” anything about what kids these days are learning on their own (with or without teachers.) What makes you think a silly law that targets teachers is going to change this?
The apocalyptic rhetoric and massive amounts of energy being expended by activists must be completely unnecessary if it’s such a silly and totally ineffective law. They should redeploy their resources somewhere they’re actually needed, right?
Do you even comprehend what the legal term “prior restraint” means?
I am quite curious to see what response will come about, when those who condemn
transgender, gay, Bi , and lesbian kids—I wonder do they also believe that,
“God makes no mistakes?” If so, then transgender, gay , bi and lesbian kids are a normal part of humanity. Why is this so difficult for so many “religious,” ones to accept what is natural in Nature?
When did “Do unto others, ” become only a value for certain religious groups?
These are the same people who politically organize to make certain plants illegal.