We’ve detailed how the Media Research Center’s Matt Hadro’s apparent main job is to complain whenever gays appear on CNN. He had a triple shot of complaining this week.
In a May 15 NewsBusters post, Hadro complains that CNN “above and beyond journalistic standards” to report on how “a man pushing for same-sex marriage made a viral video of himself and his deceased partner.” Hadro huffed: “The fact that the report came on the heels of President Obama’s announcement in favor of gay marriage last week – where CNN hosted an overwhelming majority of pro-gay guests – might say a lot about CNN’s cheerleading for same-sex marriage.”
Hadro then complained in a May 17 post:
CNN continued its ridiculous narrative of tying gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, on Tuesday’s Starting Point. Anchor Brooke Baldwin and her panel battered Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall for blocking the nomination of a gay prosecutor to the state’s bench, even though Marshall argued that he was unfit for the position because of his activism and not his orientation.
Hadro also does a drive-by Heathering of Margaret Hoover, calling her a “phoney-conservative.”
In another May 17 post, Hadro gets back to complaining about gays being on TV, grumbling that CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux wasn’t mean to a gay activist:
Zach Wahls is an activist lobbying Congress on behalf of gay rights issues, and yet CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux rolled out the red carpet for him with nary a critical question on Thursday’s 12 p.m. hour of Newsroom.
When Wahls, the author of a book titled “My Two Moms,” made light of the “big gay scourge” that some say America faces, Malveaux laughed and flattered him “That was really funny, Zach.” Sensing an opportunity, she added “Do you think that we need to use more humor to get – to further this discussion?”As in, those opposed to same-sex marriage need to lighten up a bit, and some humor will help “further this discussion.” Malveaux certainly did her part to further the gay agenda by teeing up the gay activist with complete softballs, enabling him to air his agenda with no debate.
Yeah, we wouldn’t want an activist to further his agenda on TV, would we?