DONATE

Pravda USA:

Boston Globe does vicious hit article on Scott Lively, respected pro-family pastor & writer

. . . Followed two days later by Springfield Republican newspaper

POSTED: Jan 12, 2011

The mainstream media's anti-family, anti-Christian propaganda campaign has taken a disturbing turn. On Wednesday, January 5, the Boston Globe published a particularly vicious front-page article attacking Scott Lively, a well-known pro-family activist, pastor, writer, and lecturer. It was done in a cowardly, dishonest manner where the reporter misrepresented himself and went against Dr. Lively's wishes regarding the interview.

Scott Lively is known and respected in pro-family circles around the world. He is also an attorney and has a doctorate in theology. But his principled stand on homosexuality and biblical morality, which includes several books exposing the homosexual agenda, has earned him the vitriol of homosexual activists.

Dr. Lively, a Massachusetts native, moved back to Springfield a few years ago to start an inner-city Christian ministry. This apparently angers the Globe and prompted them to publish the article.

Going far beyond mere "bias", it's possibly the worst Globe attack article against a pro-family figure in memory.

The article is stark comparison to the glowing, positive article the Globe published recently on another local religious activist figure, Bishop V. Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church. (Robinson left his wife and family to live with his homosexual lover and became an activist promoting homosexuality in the Episcopal Church.) That article, described in a recent MassResistance post, could only be termed a "puff piece."

Front-page article in Boston Globe on Jan. 5

How the media poisons a "feature article" on a pro-family conservative

The heavy bias and unprofessionalism in the way the Boston Globe and other mainstream media often cover a pro-family conservative versus a liberal is quite profound, bordering on propaganda. They clearly want the casual reader to dislike (and be fearful of) the pro-family conservative, and like and trust the liberal.

This presents itself in four major areas:

1. Uncomfortable or embarrassing "background facts." Also including negative descriptions, charges, or accusations. For the pro-family conservative, numerous such "facts" are usually included, and the subject is not given the chance to refute them. For the liberal, these are rarely if ever included (and if so the liberal gets to refute them).

2. How the subject's position is presented. The liberal gets to tell his "story" with broad direct quotes. The pro-family subject is usually allowed a few sparse quotes of his own, but the rest of his story is filtered through the reporter's retelling of it with his own negative slant.

3. Quotes from people in opposition. Articles on pro-family subjects ALWAYS include quotes and accusations from people who disagree with him -- which he is not allowed to refute. Sometimes nearly half the article is "opposing" views, often with harsh accusations. This almost never happens to a liberal.

4. Unflattering photograph(s) used. For liberals, they choose a flattering, friendly photograph. For pro-family conservatives, they choose the worst, unflattering, unfriendly photo they can find.

As you read the article (excerpted below, and in its entirety on the web) note how many of these elements are apparent:

Horrible video included with Globe article

As if that's not enough, the Globe created a bizarre video of Scott Lively which they included alongside the article. It's incredibly unprofessional. They "cherry picked" parts of video interviews he had with other media. Then the Globe added text to clarify to the viewer just how "bad" and "dishonest" Lively is.

VIDEO included with Boston Globe article You've got to see it for yourself. This Globe video is a textbook case of yellow journalism. See it HERE

What they didn't let Scott Lively tell you

The article would have certainly been more interesting if Scott Lively had been able to refute the charges and accusations against him. But it would not have served the Globe's purpose. For example:

* Various "gay groups," the extremist Southern Poverty Law Center, and others are given the status of experts in the article in their attacks on Lively, but he isn't given the chance to answer their accusations or discuss their credentials.

* Lively's book The Pink Swastika, now in its fifth edition, is well written and very well-researched. But it is the bane of the homosexual movement because of the truth that it tells. Read more about it here. His other books are equally good. For Pastor Rick Warren to call Lively a "Holocaust denier" is absurd and stupid. Lively (and his Orthodox Jewish co-author) have documented much of the Holocaust.

* The proposed Ugandan law that has liberals here in America so incensed proposed harsh punishments for those who knowingly expose people to AIDS and adults who seduce children or people with mental disabilities into homosexual sex acts. It's not far out of line with most people's sensibilities. But nevertheless, Lively did not propose the law; he simply told Ugandans his observations of the homosexual agenda.

* Lively's alleged "anti-gay rhetoric" is simply facts and discussion that the homosexual movement does not approve of. (In reality his approach is pro-humanity; he is full of compassion for those who have been drawn into homosexuality.)

Dishonest approach by reporter

Probably the worst part of the article was the dishonesty of the Boston Globe reporter, Michael Levenson. When he phoned Scott Lively asking for the interview, Levenson told him that the article would be about "the transformation of the Springfield coffee house." Then Lively asked him if it would be about homosexual issues. He indicated that it wouldn't be, but "as long as we're on the subject" he might ask a few questions about those issues.

On that basis, Scott Lively said he didn't want an on-site interview, just a phone interview. But after agreeing to that, Levenson came to the coffee house anyway and started interviewing the people there and taking pictures. When that happened Lively felt trapped into participating. It was very unprofessional.

In truth, the article was never really about the coffee house ministry, except as a background to an "expose" and attack on Lively himself over his pro-family activities and writings.

Prior discussion with MassResistance

Before contacting Scott Lively, Levenson had called Brian Camenker of MassResistance to ask about Lively's new venture in Springfield and get contact his information. In their lengthy conversation, Levenson gave no indication that he planned to write about anything other than the coffee house and ministry.

Email exchange: After the article came out Camenker had the following email exchange with the Globe reporter, Michael Levenson:

Here's his reply:

This exchange is a perfect example of the mindset of today's mainstream "journalists." Like the Left in general, they see us as a danger to society that must be exposed, and thus we are subject to different journalistic standards. If anything, we're less than human. They'll usually be very polite to our faces. But in our experience, that's the way they think and virtually nothing can dissuade them of that.

Things are changing in the media right now

The mainstream media is now starting to take the gloves off. It's possible that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal was a watershed of sorts. Traditional religious belief (particularly regarding homosexuality) has been attacked for a while, but we were still somewhat tolerated. Many in the mainstream media now believe that traditional religious belief must be purged from society. To do that, it needs to be considered a hateful aberration, even a a mental illness.

For example, notice that in both the articles (including #2 below) the label "anti-gay pastor" is used to describe Scott Lively, even though his opinions would be considered mainstream among most Americans. It's a conscious effort to demonize criticism of homosexuality, to make it a label that marginalizes him. (Of course, they would never label anyone "pro-gay" because that is now considered normal.)

---

Two days later: Springfield city official "warns" city about Scott Lively, as local newspaper follows up with second attack article.

Two days after the Globe article, the (very liberal) Springfield Republican newspaper curiously published its own attack article on Scott Lively. In it, they referenced the Globe article, but they took a different approach.

This time they accused him of harboring truants from the local high school, to accuse him of somehow enticing kids. And they include a city official to emphasize the fear people should have of Lively. In other words, another shameful hit piece.

This City Councilor obviously has no problem with Springfield's vulnerable and impressionable kids getting the homosexual agenda pushed in their faces in school. But getting the truth that's not politically correct - well, that's a problem for him.

And of course, Lively has not attempted to "attract truants" from school and has cooperated with school officials when they come to the coffee shop. The whole thing seems contrived. How many juvenile delinquents would hang out at a coffee house whose mission is to teach them the Gospel? And would Springfield City Councilor Rooke rather that kids just hang out in the drug-infested streets?  You can contact Councilor Timothy J. Rooke here and ask him.

Piling on with more unprofessional journalism

The Springfield Republican's online article also included two nasty videos about Lively (at bottom of article). One from ABC News portrays him as an evangelical Christian bigot who went to Uganda to persuade them to murder homosexuals. The other is a venomous "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" video personally attacking Lively. Would they include these if he were "pro-gay"? Absolutely not.