What’s good about the coverage is that journalists haven’t fallen into the unfortunate habit of feeling like they need to interview opposing voices. Maybe because it’s about bullying and not just LGBT issues, the stories have been blissfully free of “crazy minister” interviews or the need to include someone from Focus on the Family or Family Research Council to provide a countering voice.
There are, for sure, voices out there who are opposed to including anti-homophobia information in anti-bullying training in schools. But now isn’t necessarily the time for those voices to be used as a counterweight. We can all agree that suicide is bad and kids being bullied is bad and broadcasting an 18-year old kissing another boy on the Internet is bad. That doesn’t require a dissenting voice.
Triplett didn't make any attempt to define an example of a "crazy minister," but associating that mean-spirited stereotype immediately with Focus on the Family and the FRC implies that these are analogous to "crazy minister" groups. Imagine if a Christian journalists group cheered that coverage was terrific because they didn't talk to any "crazy homosexuals" for balance, and you get the picture.
It would define "crazy" for a minister or any Christian to suggest that a gay teenager committing suicide is less than a horrible thing. But it's clearly unfair for media outlets to utterly exclude religious conservative voices just as they are smeared by the Kathy Griffins and other radicals as having "blood on their hands" for opposing the promotion of homosexuality in schools or in other government programs.
