Chicago Reader [ Chicago Reader FREE TIX: Pitchfork Music Festival - Union Park - July 17 - 19 ] [ Food & Drink - Openings and closings, deals and special events, and more - Sign up now ]

 

Reader Info
Advertising, subscriptions, staff, privacy policy, contact info, freelancers' guidelines, etc.

[ Chicago Reader FREE STUFF: ALEFEST Soldier Field July 11 ]

[ Chicago Reader FREE TIX: Kathy Griffin - The Chicago Theatre - October 8 & 9 ]


submit to the windy citizen | Digg! Digg this | del.icio.us | E-mail E-mail this | facebook Facebook

The Business





James Dobson, Bruce DuMont, and Wayne Besen

Yvette Marie Dostatni (Dumont); Michael Murphy (Besen)

Anyone but Him

Gay activists fight James Dobson’s induction into the National Radio Hall of Fame.

July 31, 2008

Ever since the National Radio Hall of Fame announced the list of nominees for its 2008 induction, chairman Bruce DuMont has been on the hot seat. The 16 candidates for four spots were revealed in April and there was plenty of indignation about who’d been left out and which current nominees should have been recognized long ago. The Reader’s Michael Miner, for example, wondered how Studs Terkel could have been overlooked. Other media mavens wanted to know why Steve Dahl and Howard Stern were just now being considered (neither of them made it this year, either). That’s the kind of heat DuMont expected—it goes with the territory.

But this month, with the ten-week public Internet voting period nearly over, he got wind of a more troubling protest. A state­ment arrived from the gay advocacy group Truth Wins Out, along with several hundred e-mails, demanding that the list be purged of a nominee no one had mentioned up to that point: Focus on the Family, the radio ministry of right-wing pundit James Dobson.

This is not a controversy DuMont needs. He’s been struggling for years to reopen the Museum of Broadcast Communications, which he founded in 1987 and ran from 1992 to 2003 at the Chicago Cultural Center. The museum’s new home at State and Kinzie has been stalled out in mid-rehab since May 2006. DuMont, who blames the state for with­holding $6 million he says it promised him, continues his fund-raising efforts, and the $500-a-plate hall of fame induction dinner, scheduled for November 8 this year, is one of them. So he watched with concern as TWO rallied opposition to Dobson in the gay community and Dobson, who can reach 2.5 million supporters with a single e-mail blast, fought back.

The contest closed July 15 with more than 70,000 votes cast. When they were tallied, Focus on the Family had won the nationally syndicated broadcasters category, beating out Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bob Costas, and Howard Stern. DuMont announced that the public had made its choice and the hall of fame would stand by it.

But it wasn’t over for the anti-Dobson forces. They’ve mounted a new campaign to get the museum to disqualify Focus on the Family before the induction.

Recently in The Business

Got a Permit for That? The city makes it easier to panhandle on downtown streets than to sell art on them.

Plunder on a Pedestal At the Art Institute's summer show, Benin royals get a good look at the stuff they want back.

Locked-Out Syndrome An innovative art program for the severely disabled can't find a home in Chicago.

Each year since 1992, the National Radio Hall of Fame has honored a few luminaries—people and programs, the living and the dead. The list of honorees stretches from Orson Welles to Car Talk. And Dobson’s hardly the first conservative to make it: past inductees include Paul Harvey and Rush Limbaugh. So DuMont says he was surprised at the fierce reaction. But TWO founder Wayne Besen states that while his group could have lived with a win by, say, Schlessinger, Dobson’s agenda—which includes curing homosexuality and lobbying against same-sex marriage (which he predicts will “bring the destruction of this nation and many others”)—makes Focus on the Family’s election intolerable.

“Dobson is a bigot who distorts scientific research and has poisoned the air in America,” says Besen, who’s been on Dobson watch for ten years and outed the head of Dobson’s “freedom from homosexuality” initiative, Exodus International (formerly Love Won Out), by catching him on camera in a gay bar. “This is not a right-left thing. This is about right and wrong,” Besen says. “Considering how airwaves have been abused to create hatred, how can you not have some sort of standard?”

DuMont says Dobson meets the requirement for induction. “Our only criterion is the number of years in the business—10 for national, 20 for regional. He’s been broadcasting more than 15 years on more than 3,000 stations. He’s qualified. There is no criterion for political philosophy. Never has been, never will be.”

The public vote that elected Dobson was something new. Past winners were selected by experts or members of the museum. But this year, Dumont says, they wanted to open it up. Recommendations (also from the public) were accepted all year, and a steering committee appointed by DuMont met in April to select the nominees from a list of 200 or so names. DuMont says that part of the process was confidential, but the names were promptly announced. He wonders why he didn’t hear objections earlier, and why Dobson’s opponents didn’t simply vote him out. “If you really wanted to stop Dr. Dobson and send a signal by voting for someone else, there was ample opportunity between May 1 and July 15.”

But Besen claims he didn’t hear about Dobson’s candidacy until two weeks before the voting ended. “I was at the Saint Louis Pride when I got the e-mail on my phone,” he says. “With hardly any time left, we scrambled, we did what we could.” Now he sees the induction as an opportunity to “tell the world who James Dobson really is—an extremist who doesn’t believe in separation of church and state” and who “has built his empire on the backs of gays and lesbians.” If the hall of fame goes ahead with the induction, Besen warns, “we’ll have a big protest outside their dinner.” He says he’s coming to Chicago in late August or September to plan the demonstration with local leaders.

And it looks like the locals will be there. “Just because Dobson’s got ratings doesn’t mean he’s worthy,” argues Andy Thayer, cofounder of the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network. “This is a man who has ranged himself against the civil rights of a whole group of Americans. If it comes to the actual induction, we are going to be protesting.”

Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois says his group will meet with TWO and determine what its role will be. “I think it’s unfortunate that someone like James Dobson, who demonizes, distorts, and lies, is inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame,” Garcia says. “He’s not a broadcast entertainer, he’s not a journalist. I understand an open process, but the hall of fame should be for people who excel.” Garcia says he finds this especially disturbing because he has “great respect” for the museum. “I think they contribute to Chicago and the country,” he says. “It’s unfortunate that they’re caught in this controversy.”

Meanwhile, Focus on the Family issued a press release that says its victory (“the first religious program to receive such an honor”) shows that “Dr. Dobson’s influence is as strong as ever in the hearts of his fans, as well as in the culture.”

According to DuMont, things had been looking up before this tempest descended. He has a plan for proceeding on the building, despite the lack of state money, by leasing the first floor to commercial tenants and turning the fourth into a special-events space. He says a written commitment from a donor is imminent, after which he’ll only need to raise an additional $4 million to finish the $23 million project.

“We are nearing the goal line,” he says. “But this controversy doesn’t help. We need to put it in context. The people who nominated are not the MBC board. And the voting was done by the public.” As for the protesters: “Do they want me to undo the votes? Their principal objection is to what Dr. Dobson says. We don’t un-nominate people because of their political persuasion.”   

For more on the media, see our blogs News Bites and Chicagoland.

Send a letter to the editor.

Comments

Flag as inappropriate

Bruce DuMont at 9:11 AM on 7/31/2008

I write to correct errors in fact or perception in Deanna Isaacs' article on the National Radio Hall of Fame and the induction of "Focus on the Family".

First, I did not feel like I was on the "hot seat" from the start in this years voting process. FACT: There was little publicity nationally.

Second, there are not "plenty of indignation" about who was left off
our list of 2008 nominees as stated. The Reader's Michael Miner and Andrew Patner were upset that Studs Terkel was not nominated.

Ms. Isaac's stated that "other media mavens wanted to know why Steve Dahl and Howard Stern were just now being considered".

FACT: Steve Dahl and Howard Stern have each been nominated for the National Radio Hall of Fame three previous times---and both have failed to win enough votes for induction each time.

In Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, Ron Santo has suffered a similar disappointment.

Ms. Isaacs stated that I "received a "statement from the gay advocacy group Truth Wins Out" (the group leading the protest against Dr. Dobson.

FACT: TWO sent me no such release. I learned of the protest in an irate e-mail (one of over 250).

The Reader stated that (Wayne) "Besen has been on Dobson watch for ten years. If so, where was he in April when the NRHOF announced its nominations online and nationally Voting was going on since May 1st.

Besen is quoted as saying "with little time left, he scambled and did what he could."

FACT: From the day the NRHOF learned of the TWO attempt to "stop Dobson" (July 11)(and after receiving over 250 e-mails) there was little increase in the online vote totals for Bob Costas or Howard Stern, the options TWO suggested to Dobson. Thus, irate e-mails did not translate into pro-Costas or pro-Stern online votes.

Lastly, the biggest misconception in the article is that "the Public vote
that elected Dobson was something new".

FACT: The public has been able to vote for Radio Hall of Fame inductees for 15 years ---if they were museum members or joined the museum. This year we REMOVED the requirement to join the museum.

"Past winners were selected by experts or members of the museum".

FACT: The public selects the winners, the Steering Committee of the Radio Hall of Fame makes the nominations.

FACT: This controversy WILL make my job harder. But I hope readers will realize that the voting public makes the NRHOF --and the NRHOF Steering Committee makes the nominations.

The MBC and the NRHOF are two separate governing bodies.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications will continue to meet its mission to preserve and present media history ---without discrimination and without political bias when we are able to re-open our doors in our new home. Fairness is what we hope for.

Bruce DuMont
Chairman
National Radio Hall of Fame

Flag as inappropriate

Joel at 11:41 AM on 7/31/2008

According to DuMont's criteria, would Father Coughlin have been acceptable?

Flag as inappropriate

Darr at 2:18 PM on 7/31/2008

The presence of Dobson in the Hall of Fame destroys the credibility of that instituion, and reflects badly on all previous inductees. If I were a past recipient of that 'honor', I'd publically remove myself from the National Radio Hall of Fame rather than have my career sullied by assocation with Dobson and his propoganda.

Flag as inappropriate

Eric Johnson at 2:41 PM on 7/31/2008

The key issue here is what DuMont says in his response: "The public has been able to vote for Radio Hall of Fame inductees for 15 years--if they were museum members or joined the museum. This year we REMOVED the requirement to join the museum." That was a DUMB mistake, Bruce. It left the museum and Hall of Fame open to all sorts of mischief by charlatans, crazies, and saboteurs. In this case, it's perfectly obvious that Dobson's Christianofascist followers stacked the vote. The presence of Dobson is evidence of a larger problem--incompetence--which does erode the credibility of the Hall of Fame.

Flag as inappropriate

Joel at 5:20 PM on 7/31/2008

Since Mr. Dumont is reading and participating in this thread, let's give him a chance to get to the heart of this controversy.

Mr. Dumont: Were you unaware of Dobson's culture warrior profile, or aware and not concerned?

I'm willing to accept that you are a very well-intentioned person trying to reopen an exciting museum. But it's rather shocking to think you were either unaware, or unconcerned, about Dobson. Were you after donations from Dobson, or his listeners? Did you balance that out against the risk of controversy, esp. upsetting progressive policymakers and donors?

Flag as inappropriate

Michael G. at 11:03 PM on 7/31/2008

According to the National Radio Hall of Fame website, "A broadcaster’s political, social or religious views never are considered when deciding to include or exclude a candidate. Likewise, the National Radio Hall of Fame does not endorse or support the views voiced by any nominee or inductee on the air or via any other platform."
I must admit, I don't know all that much about this program, however, after reading the statement on the National Radio Hall of Fame website, it makes it pretty clear to me that they nominated the program "Focus on the Family" for the show's longevity and impact on radio (good or bad). After I did some basic Google research to learn more about the host, James Dobson, I truly believe that no one nominated his program based on his warped sense of reality and bigoted rhetoric. If that was the case, why is no one screaming about nominee, Howard Stern or inductee, Don Imus? I'm sure there are others with similar issues.
On another note, Mr. DuMont needs to stop the overly defensive comments and reply to these issues with a gentler hand and some professionalism.

Flag as inappropriate

Lisbeth Graymont at 11:02 PM on 8/1/2008

Hmmmm. DuMont is having a hard time getting the funds to reopen his Broadcast Museum. It is an empty concrete shell on State Street with nothing going on.

Dobson is on 3,000 radio stations throughout the country -- because they don't have to pay him for his consistent taped messages – messages that promote bigotry and hate against his fellow Americans.

Do the math. Induct Dobson and his 'program' becomes a free commercial on 3,000 stations for DuMont's underfunded pet project.

Hall of Fame? It is a Hall of Shame when hatemongers and charlatans are inducted simply because of their longevity on the air or worse their ability to generate the most internet votes.

The physical Museum is just a concrete shell. Now, it is also a professional and ethical shell

Flag as inappropriate

Robert M. Tilendis at 11:35 AM on 8/2/2008

The induction of James Dobson into the National Radio Hall of Fame is another example of the reasons for the disdain in which Americans have come to hold the traditional media. Regrettably, this article and Deanna Isaacs' handling of Bruce DuMont do nothing to save the situation. There are two important points here on which Isaacs gave DuMont a pass when he should have been challenged.

First, the "election." "The public has spoken?" Please. Anyone who pays attention to these things knows that the only thing an on-line poll demonstrates is who has the largest e-mail list. PZ Myers of Pharyngula regularly invites his readers to skew the results of polls on right-wing sites, and he's certainly not alone in that, on either end of the political spectrum. On-line elections are a prime example of the old Chicago mantra, "Vote early and often." Why should we think the results of this one were somehow pure? And why was DuMont allowed to get away with this assertion?

Second, and by far the more egregious miss on Isaacs' part, is the implicit idea that the protest is somehow a function of the left's attempt to stifle dissent, which is a right-wing talking point that DuMont exploits and I'm sure Dobson is only too happy to see in print. Contrary to DuMont's assertion, this is not only about "political philosophy," and the principal objection is not to what Dobson says, repellent as it is. Most of those protesting would, I think, be among the first to support Dobson's right to voice his beliefs. The fact is, which both Wayne Besen and Rick Garcia mention in their comments quoted here, that Dobson is a liar. He regularly misrepresents facts and, when that doesn't work, makes them up. This is not at all an unfounded assertion: it's well documented and is a characteristic of socially regressive extremists, of which Dobson is only the most prominent example. (Box Turtle Bulletin is only one Web site that regularly documents instances of these distortions.)

This reflexive mendacity is what is being affirmed by this induction, and yet Isaacs meekly accepts DuMont's claim that there is no criterion for "political philosophy" and slides past the real objections -- apparently there are no criteria for veracity and integrity, as well. (And in that light, DuMont's sanctimonious appeal to "fairness" in his comment speaks for itself.)

If anyone wonders why the traditional media has so little credibility these days, one only need read something like this.

Flag as inappropriate

AJP at 12:13 PM on 8/2/2008

Why is the gay community so defensive? If Dr. Dobson is just "a bigot who distorts scientific research and has poisoned the air in America" then Dobson will eventually lose his support due to his inferred lack of substance. The gay community in effect are shooting themselves in the foot by making a big deal out of this and thus giving Dr. Dobson more national attention.

Flag as inappropriate

Eric Johnson at 1:44 PM on 8/2/2008

AJP's comment that "the gay community are shooting themselves in the foot by ... giving Dr. Dobson more national attention" is ridiculous. German Jews made the mistake of letting Hitler "have his say" rather than standing up to him, for fear of giving him more national attention. Result: the Holocaust. Gays were victims of that Holocaust too; in the 1930s they couldn't have stood up for themselves publicly, but today they can, should, and will.

Flag as inappropriate

AJP at 2:06 PM on 8/2/2008

Mr. Johnson has pointed out that in most statements made there are exceptions. But in this case he goes to the extremes by comparing Dr. Dobson to Hitler. All groups of people are going to have opponents, some that they should oppose, such as the Holocaust. But someone being endorsed into a hall-of-fame that will soon be forgotten? I just feel that it is not that big of a deal without many effects...until now.

Flag as inappropriate

Eric Johnson at 6:08 PM on 8/2/2008

Re AJP's response to my comment: inclusion in the Radio Hall of Fame legitimizes Dobson's brand of broadcast hate-mongering. That's why it merits response even if the circumstances seem "not that big of a deal." A small neo-Nazi fringe group marching in Skokie in the 1970s was not a "big deal" either, but the Skokie community rightly chose to turn the incident into a big deal. Any and every opportunity must be taken advantage of to raise awareness of the evil Dobson represents.

Flag as inappropriate

Matt M. at 11:32 PM on 8/2/2008

Mr. Tilendis, you are SPOT ON. I would love to see Bruce - check out my web site with pics of me and my good pal, Donald Rumsfeld! - Dumont's reaction. In fact, since you went to the trouble of correcting the central mishandling of that interview with the old hack I think your comments merit a response from him. For Dumont to say that the induction of Don Imus is somehow equivocal is completely dubious. Imus apologized for his "going to far." Anyone who knows anything about Dobson will tell you that his career is devoted to the demonization of an entire class of people in America - GLBT people. His aim is to prevent us from having equal rights under the law. Just curious, is there another Hall of Fame inductee who is on record as devoting their radio career to fighting civil rights for America citizens? Just curious. Bruce?

Flag as inappropriate

Frank Caito at 11:21 AM on 8/3/2008

Why would any credible organization leave a decision about anything to the internet voters of America?

That is plain stupid.

(Excuse me for a minute. I have to claim 2.5 million dollars from a Barrister and Christian widow in Nigeria.)

Is this a serious, credible 'Hall of Fame' or is it about who can generate the most internet votes?

DuMont's blustery response to this controversy is pathetic.

I have always admired DuMont, but on this he is dead wrong.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Flag as inappropriate

Salvador at 2:44 PM on 8/4/2008

Everyone involved in this incredible controversy should visit Google, Yahoo etc. and enter the words "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up" even if the S-S Storm Troopers won't recognize the love behind it and will want to censor it. Salvador

Flag as inappropriate

Eric Johnson at 4:12 PM on 8/4/2008

For what it's worth, Dobson's induction into the Radio Hall of Fame--and the controversy and threatened protests--are included on Dobson's "Wikipedia" entry.

Flag as inappropriate

Robert M. Tilendis at 4:35 PM on 8/4/2008

Didn't waste any time, did they? Dobson's just eating this up.

Flag as inappropriate

Burr Deming at 10:46 PM on 8/4/2008

Our site takes a somewhat unbalanced view of Brother Dobson. Yours is considerably more charitable. Thanks for adding your comment to the blogging universe.

Flag as inappropriate

Matthew at 12:25 AM on 8/6/2008

Bruce DuMont has been active in the rights and politics of the gay and lesbian community for over 20 years. His radio show "Beyond the Beltway" features gay and lesbian journalists, politicians and business leaders on a regular basis. His late wife, Kathy Osterman, was honored by the CHICAGO GAY & LESBIAN HALL OF FAME for her tireless support of gay rights. She was a fierce and outspoken lobbyist for the passage of Chicago's Human Rights ordinance, working closely with key activists and leaders within the community.

Based on everything I have read thus far, if James Dobson was solely nominated for being on the air for over 20 years and on over 4,000 international radio stations, then the rules of the National Radio Hall of Fame must be modified, both in the nomination and voting process. A public institution like this would never honor an individual for his bigotry.

Flag as inappropriate

Robert M. Tilendis at 11:18 AM on 8/6/2008

Matthew: DuMont's attitude toward gay rights is not at issue here, and is, in fact, irrelevant. As for honoring Dobson's bigotry, that's really not the central issue either. It's really about Dobson's dishonesty and how that is being validated in this manner. I agree completely that the rules for nominating and inducting honorees into the NRHOF need to be looked at quite carefully, and as soon as possible. After all, what purpose does a Hall of Fame serve when it enshrines liars and demagogues on an equal basis with honest journalists?

The other important issue, as I see it, is the Reader's kid-glove handling of DuMont and what amounts to a mischaracterization of the reasons for the protests. It's a shallow look, and one that does no real service to anyone.

Flag as inappropriate

Matt Messbarger at 1:55 PM on 8/6/2008

Bruce Dumont's attitude towards GLBT people may not be central to the issue here but I don't think it's irrelevant. No one would think of inducting, say, David Duke in to the NRHF if he had a flourishing radio career. The fact that Dumont propagates the fallacy of Dobson as representing a coherent "political philosphy" when to most thinking people what it really represents is bad science and child abuse is appalling and deeply dishonest. Or how about the ex-gay movement Dobson is heavily affiliated with? Again, that is abuse! This comes down to the fact that Dumont thinks we are obliged to consider Dobson as someone with an argument worthy of attention from the mainstream just because he has perpetrated a fraud that has found an audience. You can't get to Dumont's conclusion without thinking that Dobson is on equal footing with civil rights supporters. That's bullshit. Of course this award sanctions Dobson's toxic agenda. *Of course it does.* Anyone who might be obliged to go to the MBC if it ever re-opens who cares about civil rights for LGBT people should boycott and withhold donations as long as they insist that Dobson belongs in their hall of fame.

Flag as inappropriate

Matthew at 7:23 PM on 8/7/2008

For over 20 years, the MBC has provided the community with public programs, exhibits and collections, including school curriculum, regarding the history of radio and television, civil rights, political debates and more. They even have a collection of gay and lesbian programming/studies. The greater good this museum provides far out-ways ONE error (regardless of how serious) in judgement.

Flag as inappropriate

Bob Schwartz at 7:44 AM on 8/10/2008

No double standard for gays! DuMont would never honor a racist like Don Imus or an anti-Semite like 1930s radio icon, Father Charles Coughlin.

Just so everyone is aware, Gay Liberation Network joined by activist Wayne Besen, will protest if DuMont goes ahead with the ill advised induction of Dobson into his Hall of Fame.

Unless DuMont sees the light, the protest will begin at 5:30 PM on November 8 at the Chicago Renaissance Hotel, 1 West Wacker Drive.

Flag as inappropriate

Diane at 10:08 PM on 8/10/2008

There are no double standards here. Don Imus is already in the Radio Hall of Fame (long before he made his racial comments).

The Hall of Fame already notes on it's website... "a broadcaster’s political, social or religious views never are considered... The National Radio Hall of Fame does not endorse or support the views voiced by any nominee or inductee on the air or via any other platform. The National Radio Hall of Fame will re-evaluate the voting and nominating processes for future elections."

Publicly stating that they do not endorse the beliefs of ANY inductee, which includes Dobson, as well as noting that they are going to review the voting procedure is a large step in the right direction.

As I am involved in another notable Hall of Fame, I don't believe they should pull the induction because it potentially scars others that have worked hard in the radio industry all of their lives to finally receive the Radio Hall of Fame honor and questions the very methods of which they were inducted themselves.

I also am a fan of Bruce DuMont and his weekly radio program and know first hand that he supports the Gay and Lesbian community because I have been on his show discussing civil rights and the legalization of gay marriage.

My partner and I are not happy that someone of his confused/bigoted background is being honored for anything, however, I have been a supporter of this non-profit institution for over 15 years, and have seen the wonderful educational and entertaining programs that they have professionally presented to the community.

Flag as inappropriate

Andrew Patner at 7:05 AM on 8/12/2008

I only just now saw Bruce Dumont's list of "corrections" to Deanna Isaacs's column on the so-called National Radio Hall of Fame. As Bruce mentions my name, I am responding to the part of his post where he minimizes the criticism that I, Michael Miner, *and others* have made about the "Hall."

Bruce is an old friend and I have long admired his own work on the radio over the past 30-some years and his tireless energy on behalf of the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago. As a number of posters here have rightly observed, the Museum also has an excellent record when it comes to minority issues, history, and representation, including in the areas of gay and lesbian people.

But the "Hall of Fame" is a joke and has been for decades. It's not just that "Studs Terkel was not nominated" in 2008 that caught Michael Miner's and my attention, it's that this international radio legend was not inducted long ago and that, as Miner has carefully reported, the "Hall"'s board members and nominating committee were not even aware that Studs Terkel was a radio broadcaster!

Similarly, many pioneers of classical, public, and alternative radio have never even been considered for the "Hall" under any of its changing categories and systems of nomination and election while the Rush Limbaughs and Paul Harveys -- whose names help with fundraising events -- have, of course, long been on the roster.

Perhaps Bruce can answer two questions in this forum that he has avoided over all of these years:

1 -- What kind of "Hall of Fame" has no place for Studs Terkel and employs a changing system of nomination and elections that has kept him out of the "Hall" from its inception? As Bruce and company have made and make the rules, saying that Studs Terkel should just accept that he is the Ron Santo of Bruce's "Hall" is a poor comparison.

2 -- Will he consider Father Coughlin for posthumous membership in the "Hall"? Coughlin was certainly one of the most significant figures in the entire history of radio and as an unapologetic anti-Semite and admirer of Hitler and Mussolini throughout the 1930s puts the two-bit gay-hater "Dr." Dobson in some perspective. If the "Hall" will honor bigotry and misinformation this year, then why not do so with the best in the game?

Andrew Patner
98.7WFMT and wfmt.com
Chicago Sun-Times
viewfromhere.typepad.com

Flag as inappropriate

Bill Thomas at 6:08 PM on 10/17/2008

Why is the gay community so afraid of Dobson. Because he believes in what he is saying. he believes this is the truth. As a Christian and trying to live the Gospel Values I support Dobson's hard work againist same-sex marriage. Please don't misunderstand me as aganist a gay person. Evereyne should be treated with dignity (or love if you prefer that verbage), and from what I have seen, those who support gay activities, are not really loving people as God intended. If gay supporters would take a different approach and talk instead of taking the approach "Whats Best for ME!" Maybe both groups would have a better understanding of each other.

Flag as inappropriate

Robert M. Tilendis at 8:18 AM on 10/24/2008

Reluctant as I am to question anyone's sincerity, no matter how wrong-headed I believe them to be, I do question James Dobson's. I've known devout Christians, including evangelicals, who would never dream of engaging in the kind of demonization that has formed the core of Dobson's career. Based on what he's said, what he's written, and his tactics, I have to label him a politician hiding behind a Bible. I think the dishonesty in his program reaches that deep.

And once again the old question, Mr. Thomas: why should your religious beliefs be written into civil law? I'm afraid I see a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in the claim that you are not against gay people, but you don't think they should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Flag as inappropriate

Eric Weiss at 4:12 PM on 10/25/2008

Also, Mr. Thomas, the word is "verbiage." There is no such word as "verbage."

Flag as inappropriate

Chris P at 11:10 PM on 11/8/2008

"As God intended" - There are no Gods - its all make believe. Stop using your crazy ideas to influence the rest of us. You can do what you like in your churches as long as it doesn't affect the rest of us. Overpopulating the planet does affect the rest of us.

No - the churches have done what they accuse liberals of planning to do. They say liberals will take away their rights when in fact the church has taken away the rights of gays, mothers and atheists already.

Flag as inappropriate

B L at 8:40 AM on 11/9/2008

Why is it that the gay and lesbian movement has single out Mr. Dobson and Focus on the Family for its contribution on behalf of Californians that stood opposed to them. Is it not the SAME anger and hate they say has been supposedly shown to them that they are mustering against their adversaries. Dr. Dobson didn’t spend his money or Focus on the Family's money, he spent MY money, my donation. I support him and the people in California that prayed and voted their will. EVERYONE, straight, gay, lesbian, transgender ALL HAD THE SAME RIGHT TO VOTE. Somehow that is getting lost in the whole discussion. WE ARE A DEMOCROCY AND THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. I for one do not agree with every elected official or law that is passed. I do believe that if put to vote and passed then the will of the people has been carried out. I can understand the feeling of defeat; I feel it everyday in the struggle to provide for my family. In the Prop 8 battle MILLIONS of dollars were spent on BOTH SIDES!!! To say that because one person or organization spent $800,000 on one side of the issue, what about the MILLIONS spent to oppose prop 8? What about Robert Wilson, David Bohnett, David Maltz, the California Teacher Union? They all gave far MORE than Dr. Dobson and FotF. What about the Knights of Columbus? They were on the same side as Dr. Dobson and FotF and gave MORE! Stop spreading the same hate you are supposedly fighting against. This country was founded by Christians and our founding fathers felt it so important for the health of our country that they based our HIGHEST law, the Constitution, on scriptural beliefs. Praise God and the people have spoken His will and theirs.

Flag as inappropriate

7thArt at 3:27 AM on 11/10/2008

It remains somewhat unclear to me why this all boils down to Dobson's stance on homosexuality - what of abortion, marriage, separation of church and state? Frankly, he's more liberal than the majority of his right wing evangelical counterparts, say Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

Readers are given over to hyperbole when discussing Dobson and his presumed vilification of the gay community. I read something of his once where he stated that homosexuality wasn't a sin, rather homosexual behavior..therefore, following his logic, self-identified members of the lgbtq community needed to be abstinent (in the same way, he believes, as unmarried het. couples are called to abstinence). While he's clearly not supportive of the gay community, you'd never see him at a pride parade shouting "God hates fags", or even supporting such deplorable demonstrations. If hatemongering is defined here as the result of fighting constitutional amendments and the likes, then we should be going after many other prominent, conservative public figures as well.

What it boils down to is this: the guy's made a huge impact through his use of the media. For better or worse, he realized how to tap into the christian zeitgeist and, as a result, is broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on over 7,000 stations worldwide, and heard daily by more than 220 million people in 164 countries (thanks Wikipedia!).

Agree or disagree, it's impossible to deny his reach. To say that he shouldn't have been inducted on the basis of differing ideologies is quite small-minded and reactionary, interestingly enough the very same thing Dobson's being accused of promulgating.

Flag as inappropriate

Lemastre at 12:41 AM on 3/1/2009

While I disagree with James Dobson's bigotry, he meets the criteria for the radio hall of fame and should be added to its roll.

As far as the hall of fame goes, it doesn't need a physical address any more than radio itself does. To its fans, radio is not about physical places, but about the places created in our imaginations by the voices that magically come into our homes via the receivers in our living rooms. Radio halls of fame can and perhaps should be just as ethereal. And the Internet is the ideal home for such institutions. No buildings are needed.

Flag as inappropriate

Robert M. Tilendis at 5:13 PM on 6/8/2009

I just ran across this again and noticed a couple of comments I can't let pass.

BL: With all due respect, I suggest you find a good, accurate American history book and do some reading on the founding of our country, with particular attention to the Founders' religious beliefs and their distrust of Christianity in general and the organized variety in particular.

Second, I suggest you look up the definitions of "innate" and "inalienable" in regard to human rights, and then think again about "the people have spoken" in relation to those concepts.

7thArt: What is it you're actually trying to say? That Dobson's not a bigot because he has no problem with gay people as long as they are content to deny a basic component of their humanity? Did it occur to you that he's lying about that, too? Or does his association and support for "ex-gay ministries" not count?

As to "Why Dobson, instead of (fill in the appropriate anti-gay figure here)?" Because Dobson's the one under discussion. If it were Pat Robertson or Rick Warren, I'd be happy to point out their shortcomings, too.

Add a comment

Required, but will never be displayed

This math problem is an anti-spam measure

(please read our policy)



From the Reader blogs

Chicagoland Whet Moser: The FDIC closed down five Illinois banks today.
Thursday at 5:31 pm

 



We welcome your comments and suggestions. Click here to send us a message.

©1996-2009 Creative Loafing Media All Rights Reserved.