Columnist Dan Savage stands by comments on 'bulls**t in the Bible'

[oilpro2]

16. In journalism, as in many professions, one has to put up with..

the quacks and the crazies. One has to listen and hear what they are saying.

A journalist can choose what issues and what notorious people one wishes to cover, but once one makes that decision, one has an obligation as a journalist to listen, then to critique, to ask questions, to demand accountability.

Let's take me at the David Duke clone lecture. I would patiently sit through it, not agreeing with any points the speaker made. I would hope I would be creative enough to ask questions to burst the speaker's bubble, to show him to be a fraud, a charlatan, a seriously deficient and intellectually challenged speaker.

Were I a believer in the literal truth of the Old Testament regarding homosexuality, (obviously I am not), I would find it my duty to question and critique comments by a gay liberation type speaker such as Dan Savage. Either that, or I would choose not to attend.

Walking out displays nothing but cowardice in the world of journalism. It displays a lack of conviction in one's own abilities to listen, understand, question and critique. It is a political statement, not a journalistic nor a professional statement of conviction. Walking out is a coward's way of dealing with adverse ideas and concepts. Staying and questioning and critiquing is the proper role of a journalist, in any situation.