How slanted is media coverage for the gay agenda? Enough that one show’s decision to include a proponent of reparative therapy in a segment on the subject of reparative therapy provoked backlash from the gay community.
The Dr. Oz Show aired
a segment [1] on November 28 featuring a debate over the relative merits of
reparative therapy. Among the debaters was Julie Hamilton, a representative of NARTH [2] (The National Association for the Research
and Therapy of Homosexuality), a group whose mission statement says that it “is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope
to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.” 
But Dr Oz’s decision to including a representative of the dreaded NARTH was enough to draw the ire of gay activists. The Huffington Post groused [3]: “A controversial "Dr. Oz Show" episode has sparked the ire of the nation's most high-profile lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocacy groups for promoting the "dangerous and harmful practices" of reparative therapy.”
The Huffington Post also reported that Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) complained [4] in an e-mail statement: "Although the show also featured guests who condemned the idea and practice of 'reparative therapy,' Dr. Oz himself never weighed in, and the audience was misled to believe that there are actual experts on both sides of this issue."
On his blog, Dr. Oz explained his reasoning [5] for daring to include a NARTH representative on his show on the topic of reparative therapy: “I felt that we needed to include all parties who have considered reparative therapy to hear the stories of people who have tried these treatments. Although some viewers may disagree with this tactic, if we want to reach everyone who might benefit from understanding the risks of this therapy, you have to present multiple perspectives.”
Dr. Oz also noted in his post that he sided with the gay community on the issue of reparative therapy: “After listening to both sides of the issue and after reviewing the available medical data, I agree with the established medical consensus. I have not found enough published data supporting positive results with gay reparative therapy, and I have concerns about the potentially dangerous effects when the therapy fails, especially when minors are forced into treatments.”
But even agreement did not satisfy gay activists. In a joint statement appearing on GLAAD’s website [4], GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Baird protested: GLSEN would not have participated in The Dr. Oz Show had we known that NARTH would be represented. The Dr. Oz Show provided a platform to a fringe organization promoting dangerous and harmful practices that every major health, mental health and education organization has consistently repudiated as harmful to youth.”
The only acceptable opinions on gay issues appear to be those of the gay community – as GLAAD director Herndon Graddick wrote [4]: “The issue is not one that can be discussed as though both sides are equally valid.” Most of the media has fallen into lockstep [6] with this view that the only acceptable side is the gay side. Those like Dr. Oz who dare to include contrary views are attacked for allowing any view contrary to the gay agenda.