CNN's Lemon Insists Gun Rant 'Wasn't Advocacy,' Compares Gay Rights to Civil Rights
After the Newtown shooting, CNN anchor Don Lemon cried that "We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets," but he still insisted it "wasn't advocacy" and that he's "about accuracy and the truth," in an interview with the LGBT publication Dallas Voice.
"It wasn't advocacy. It was being a human. I've always said we are human beings before we are reporters," was Lemon's excuse. Of course, basically calling for an assault weapons ban is advocacy, not to mention comparing opponents of same-sex marriage to segregationists.
However, Lemon has long claimed objectivity even while admitting that he's out to "change minds" as an openly-gay journalist. His "defense" is that he's out for the "truth," not to be "fair and balanced":
"And that's not my slogan to be fair and balanced. My thing is about accuracy and the truth. Just because someone has another point of view or opinion, I don't believe in false fairness. I just believe in the truth."
He still wants a "conversation," though: "We have issues when it comes to gun violence in this country and we need to talk about it." For him, "talking about it" means reporters giving impassioned rants on the air rather than hosting a substantial debate. And being "human" doesn't stop at expressing sorrow over a tragedy; it means wanting guns "off the streets."
Then there's Lemon's absurd excuse for comparing Mitt Romney's defense of traditional marriage to Gov. George Wallace's cry for "segregation forever" in 1963:
"When someone says marriage is between one man and one woman, I imagine what that will sound like in 40 or 50 years. I’m offering you the opportunity to think about it. I'm not saying that will sound like George Wallace. I'm just giving you the opportunity to think about it."
Lemon compared the fight for same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement: "the fight and crusade for equal rights and civil rights are exactly the same."
At least Lemon is honest about his views, but he absurdly hides behind a mantle of objectivity and a thirst for the "truth" at a network that prides itself on being (not really) non-partisan.