CNN Runs Affiliate’s Biased Report on Pro-Gay Marriage Parents

Photo of Matthew Balan.

On Monday’s Newsroom program, CNN ran a report from its San Francisco affiliate which sympathized with parents in California who are upset that video of their first grade children, whom they allowed to go on a field trip to their lesbian teacher’s civil marriage, is being used in an anti-gay marriage political ad in the state. The report, by KGO/ABC7 reporter Tomas Roman, also failed to identify California Assemblyman Mark Leno as an openly gay man. The Democratic politician blasted the conservative sponsors of the ad, accusing them of "abuse [against] young children" [see video at right; audio available here].

During the report, the KGO correspondent also played two clips from William May of the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign, who defended the use of the video of the children in the ad, compared to the five total clips from those who object to its use.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Roman’s report, which aired 18 minutes into the 11 am Eastern hour of the Newsroom program, highlighted the press conference of three parents who expressed outrage over the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign’s use of video taken at the lesbian marriage of Erin Carder, who teaches their first-grade children. Eighteen first-graders total went on a school-sponsored field trip to the San Francisco city hall so they could throw rose petals as Carder and her partner descended the stairs after their civil marriage. Roman played three clips from the parents during his report. In the second clip, parent Matt Alexander made clear that he saw no problem with his child attending his teacher’s gay marriage: "It’s one thing to have a journalistic report about, again, what we thought was a really sweet moment for our kids and their teacher."

Besides clips of the three parents, Roman also played two other clips from gay marriage proponents. The first came from Jack O’Connell, the California Superintendent of Schools, who voiced his opposition to Proposition 8, which, if approved by California voters in November, would outlaw gay marriage. The second clip, from California Assemblyman Mark Leno, came at the very end of the report. Roman failed to mention that Leno, identified on-screen by CNN as being from the California State Assembly, is one of the first two openly gay men to serve in the state body. The assemblyman made an inflammatory accusation against the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign in the clip: "It is indeed reprehensible that the proponents of Proposition 8 would abuse young children to make their point."

The full transcript of Tomas Roman’s report from Monday’s Newsroom program:

TONY HARRIS: In California, a bunch of first graders are appearing in a political ad aimed at making same-sex marriage illegal -- the ad from a group backing Proposition 8. The parents of those kids aren't happy. Thomas Roman of affiliate KGO has details.

JENNIFER PRESS: The ads must come down --

TOMAS ROMAN, KGO: Jennifer Press says these images of her 6-year-old and other first grade children were not meant for political use. Her 6-year-old Lucy was part of a field trip to [San Francisco’s] city hall to see her teacher married to her same-sex partner. Now her daughter is featured prominently in a ‘Yes on 8' TV ad. She and other parents held a news conference.

MATT ALEXANDER, FATHER OF CHILD IN AD: It’s one thing to have a journalistic report about, again, what we thought was a really sweet moment for our kids and their teacher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE ANNOUNCER: Opponents of Proposition 8 said gay marriage has nothing to do with schools. Then a public school took first graders to a lesbian wedding, calling it ‘a teachable moment.’ Now a liberal education politician says schools ‘aren't required to teach about marriage’ --

ROMAN: The Prop 8 ad goes onto say that teaching marriage is required in 96% of all California schools, according to the state public school superintendent’s website. The superintendent had something different to say in this ‘No on 8' ad.

JACK O’CONNELL, CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS: Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage. And using kids to lie about that is shameful.

ROMAN: William May is with the ‘Yes on 8' campaign.

WILLIAM MAY, "YES ON PROP 8" CAMPAIGN: The superintendent of public instruction is absolutely lying on this. He knows better, and they’re trying to cover it up. They don't want parents to know that this is going to be taught in public schools.

ROMAN: Laura Hodder and Matt Alexander’s son Ben is also in the ad.

LAURA HODDER: You can’t use children's images in political statements like this. No one asked us to use our children. No one -- no one talked to us about this, and I feel like my children are being manipulated.

ROMAN: May says the children’s images are legally usable.

MAY: The images of the children wouldn't be in the public domain if they hadn’t called the press and publicized it. Those images have been on national TV.

ROMAN: The Prop 8 campaign says the ad will stay. [California] Assemblyman Mark Leno called the use of children in this political battle just wrong.

MARK LENO, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: It is indeed reprehensible that the proponents of Proposition 8 would abuse young children to make their point.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

MARK LENO, CALIFORNIA STATE

MARK LENO, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: It is indeed reprehensible that the proponents of Proposition 8 would abuse young children to make their point.

I have an idea: how about you a-holes get all the kids together and force them to sing a song about it and then post it on YouTube?

Then you could use your own kids to make your own point: gay marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage. Please ignore the previous 5,000 years of human society.

Well here it comes, Like it or not

then keep your kids in school learning, at taxpayers expense, rather than getting involved in deep family issues..

Right-wing hypocrisy knows

Right-wing hypocrisy knows no bounds.  Social conservatives are nothing if not fanatical about parents' rights to protect their children from any and all things that the parents consider unseemly.  Religion, sexuality, TV shows, etc, etc...if any parent, anywhere thinks it might have a subversive effect on his or her child, then it is a nefarious element of culture.  But the moment that the figure of the child is arrogated for an anti-gay commercial, especially when the footage is taken at an event that the parents approved of, suddenly it's the parents' fault and they have no right to decry the exploitation.  Stunning logic.

If the show was on the other foot - if children of so-called traditional families were being filmed and used in a pro-gay-marriage ad, you all would be losing your minds over it.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

I guess that was some kind

I guess that was some kind of a good try by you Jason...

Doesn't work for me...

I'll let others debate you...I know how you go on and on and on...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT... ... what? Who

BT...

...

what?

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

Jason

This is simply another example of government schools being used to advance liberal social engineering rather than educate. There is nothing to be said in its favor unless you want to indoctrinate young children into a sinful lifestyle. I hope you understand the meaning of sin.

The meaning of sin is

The meaning of sin is irrelevant.  The parents gave their permission for children to go on a field trip.  The parents consented to the children's exposure to a gay marriage ceremony.  You can't just pin it on the schools.  And besides which, the basis of this article is not about whether kids should or should not be exposed to it, it's whether the parents have a right to be upset that their children were subsequently featured in the usual hysterical anti-gay-marriage fodder.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

"The meaning of sin is irrelevant"

...spoken like a true anarchist! Well done JasonC! 

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM, what, pray tell, does

MM, what, pray tell, does Christian theology have to do with the rejection of compulsory systems of government?

My point is simply that the thrust of this NB article does not pertain to the highly-subjective question of what is or is not sinful.  Though you well know that if we're going to make the argument about whether gay marriage is OK or not, I'll fight tooth and nail in favor of the former.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

Hello Jason I'm back

I had to run some errands. Sin is the cincious transgression of God's law. By forcing these children to participate in a religious service against their parents wishes the government is violating the first ammendment.

Coco, next time read the

Coco, next time read the article.  The whole point is that the parents did give their permission.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

Jason, Coco...I DO NOT CARE!!!!

SERIOUSLY!!!

THIS IS A POLITICS SITE.....RIGHT???

YES OR NO???

I have friends on ALL SIDES!!!

SERIOUSLY.

OK???????????????????????????????????????????

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

ster,

I would guess that this would slide into the political spectrum since it is on a ballot and being voted on and therefore political - Prop 8. Otherwise I agree that it is too political and too personal an issue to argue at this point in the primary election cycle.

Hey!! Spaz!!! Stop!

Look Above!!!

Then...I don't even know what the F*** you are talking about.

I'm here in Austin.  I DO NOT SEE ANY PROP 8 HERE IN TEXAS.

CAN YOU SHOW IT TO ME.

AGNOSTIC.

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

ster - a Texas size ego?

All in fun but I believe their are people that come to this site from outside of the great state of Texas. More particularly there are people from that liberal fantasy lands of California as well as the more reasonable parts of California that should be allowed to talk about political measures that effect them. I could be wrong and I may have missed the part about this site only being about national political stories.

The exchange above is about the children being exposed to a homosexual wedding after being given permission of the parents. It would be hypocritical to argue for the parents right to control what there children are exposed to and then complain when the parents don't make a choice with which you agree. I'm with you on the issue in general as I have friends on both sides.

Women in ponds may be no basis for a form of government but it is more appealing than just pulling the sword from a stone - depending on the woman of course.

Ummm...Errrrr...Ummm

Look!!!  A Chicken!!!

I like Shiny Things!!!

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

chicken

Would that chicken be a rooSter?

Watch the pretty shiny thing. You are getting sleepy!

Ha!! Thanks Agnostic!!

Sooo...I was standing in line at the Bank...

This Chicken comes up....Security notices...

The Guard walks toward the Chicken.....

Chicken...looks ahead...nobody notices the chicken...

Guard walks by.....

I'm next at the line at the bank...

Chicken cuts in front of me....

And then...

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

Ster, re-Animaniacs

Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you?
You don't act like the other chickens do.
You wear a disguise
To look like human guys,
But you're not man; you're a Chicken Boo.

Classic!

Classic!

Where U at??

Amazing.

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

JasonC,

You are absolutely right on this one as the parents did have a choice and two parents opted out. This teacher is apparently admired by the students and many of the teachers and I hope it is because she is a quality teacher and not because she fits a SF activist mindset. I only say this because of the repetition of the lack of this trip being controversial because they obviously know it is at least slightly controversial simply by the fact that they are being interviewed.

Ok...Fine...Jason...Coco...What can I Do??

Vent.

Jason....Your Turn....GO First.

Then...Coco...You Go.

I Shall Moderate.....OK?????  or drink a beer. lol.

Ster. 

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

Jason, next time read the article

Laura Hodder is quoted - "No one asked us to use our children. No one.. No one talked to us about this, and I feel my children are being manipulated." Jason, next time read the article. The whole point is that the parents feel that their children are being used and manipulated. This is another example of social engineering in schools to present sinful lifestyles as morally acceptable to innocent children.

Oh Coco, I truly hate to do

Oh Coco, I truly hate to do this to you, but Hodder, along with the other parents, is protesting the use of her child in the anti-gay ad, NOT the fact that her child was at the wedding in the first place.  In fact, it's quite clear that the children who went to this event were all granted permission by their parents, meaning that the school was NOT manipulating or engineering the children's ideology, but that the parents were given the option, as they should be.  The problem is that their presence at the wedding was then appropriated and used in the service of some homophobic ad created by busybodies with too much time on their hands; and very likely sexual identity issues to boot...

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

Nice...

JasonC will fight tooth and nail against thousands of years of human civil history to prove what? That sinful men have the "right" to poke each other in the behind? Well guess what? you have the right(in the US). try that in IRAN!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Yes, for roughly a decade

Yes, for roughly a decade or so now, homosexual intercourse in the US has been legal - though there are still some legal hang-ups in the south, surprise surprise; they're called sodomy laws. 

It's not like the laws just changed out of the blue though.  They have that right to privacy and the right to consent to what they do with their own bodies because of activism.  And there is not a single good reason to deny them the right to marry as well.

 But again, that is not what this article is about.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

"And there is not a single

"And there is not a single good reason to deny them the right to marry as well."

Wow! Just Wow! I'm hoping you're from a country that has different terminology than mine. Else, I'll eventually need to change my address.

 

"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."

--The Dooper

I can't think of a single

I can't think of a single good reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry each other.  And certainly not one so severe that I'd need to change my address.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?

If you properly read the

If you properly read the article, you would realize it that there was more to it than just the issue of the parents. The other issue I highlighted was the bias-by-omission by not describing in further detail who Mark Leno is, besides being an "Assemblyman."

Now, back to the issue you were accusing me of "hypocrisy" over. Your hypothetical over the children of traditional families being filmed and used in a pro-gay marriage is exactly what it is - a hypothetical. I can't see a pro-gay marriage ad using the filming of children at a traditional marriage effectively in the same way. Also, I doubt they would be "losing their minds over it," as you so claim.

Also, there's the issue of the sheer audacity of an openly-gay Assemblyman calling "child abuse" over a video that's in the public realm, when they want to force their acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of the country.

I was not calling you, per

I was not calling you, per se, hypocritical; rather, I was referring to the inevitable tide of outrage from those who, in all other contexts, would fight to the death to defend the right of parents to defend and protect their children from any element or exposure that they, the parents, deem alien and dangerous.  And who's to say that such a hypothetical is disingenuous?  Presenting such ideological reversals for the sake of argument is Newsbusters' primary modus operandi.  I've merely taken the opposite ideology.

And this is my sole argument.  I am not arguing that the producers of the anti-gay commercial broke any laws or that there are not transparent conflicts of interest at work here; merely that to criticize the parents, as if they "got what they deserved" by allowing their children to attend a gay wedding, is highly hypocritical.

Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?