The magazine and website Psychology Today has announced that it will no longer allow providers of anti-LGBT conversion therapy to advertise in its directory.
The decision comes after a weird two days. Just one day before this announcement, Psychology Today expressed exactly the opposite sentiment — that they were “not a fan” of conversion therapy, but wouldn’t deny providers the opportunity to advertise. So the Huffington Post published a story Tuesday about their refusal to remove conversion therapy providers from the directory. Not four hours later, Psychology Today announced the change.
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, first pressed Psychology Today in February to remove all advertisements that purported to help gay people become straight through counseling, a practice that is roundly condemned by the mainstream mental health community. “By offering a venue for these medically-debunked practices, Psychology Today is lending them a veneer of credibility — propping up a fraudulent industry that takes advantage of vulnerable individuals, including children and families,” HRC spokesman Fred Sainz wrote in a letter to the CEO and publisher of Psychology Today.
Until Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign’s letter and subsequent phone calls had gone unanswered. But on Tuesday morning, HuffPost published a story on the saga. Less than four hours later, Frank announced the new company policy in a statement on the website: “The Therapy Directory has removed the individual whose profile included a discussion of conversion therapy. We have informed all Directory professionals that those whose profiles offer conversion therapy will be delisted.”
Frank has since removed five profiles that mentioned “reparative therapy,” another name for conversion therapy, from the directory’s nearly 80,000 profiles. “It took me a while to track them all down,” he told HuffPost in an email.
Socially conscious journalism in action! Good on Psychology Today for finally making the right choice, even if they had to be called out to do it.
I think this made the rounds a bit, but one-of-seven-billion sent me a link to this The Guardian article about a DailyMail.com ex employee and I decided to read the original one -published in Gawker-. So here it is (emphasis mine, and very summarised, though I recommend you read the whole article):
My Year Ripping Off the Web with the Daily Mail Online
What Wolff failed to acknowledge: the Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.
Yes, most outlets regularly aggregate other publications’ work in the quest for readership and material, and yes, papers throughout history have strived for the grabbiest headlines facts will allow. But what DailyMail.com does goes beyond anything practiced by anything else calling itself a newspaper. In a little more than a year of working in the Mail’s New York newsroom, I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors at the most highly trafficked English-language online newspaper in the world publish information they knew to be inaccurate.
Often enough, the only original information the Mail would contribute to the story would be an error or some sensationalized misrepresentation of facts.
And so for some 500 articles I hid behind the anonymous veil of the “Daily Mail Reporter” byline. Six times, my name did get attached to a story. One of these was under the headline “Private school teen ‘enlisted gang member friends to help beat and kill his father before emptying his bank account and going on a 2-day shopping spree.’”
[N/W: I searched for it, and found it, further proof of this being real:
Unsurprisingly, that’s not the headline I wrote when I filed the story; an editor had dreamed it up after I’d gone home for the day. It would have been a fine headline—if it had been true. For one thing, the teen had not yet been convicted, despite the certainty of the headline. But so it goes at the Mail, which has all but abandoned the word “allegedly” in favor of putting quotation marks around a paraphrased description of the deed in question. The phrase in quotation marks never even appeared in the story. The punctuation served merely as a distancing mechanism.
What’s more, the “private school teen” was barely a teen—Matthew Nellessen was a 19-year-old adult—and, other than a three-month stint which resulted in expulsion, he didn’t go to private school.
The Mail says it changed my headline “to make it more descriptive,” and that “private school” is appropriate descriptor because Nellessen once attended St. Viator High School—for less than three months, when he was 15.
I told the editors about the inaccuracy. They kept the headline, and my byline is still attached to something that I know is a lie. (In fact, MailOnline has since edited the piece to include a casual mention of his supposed tuition.)
My father, playing devil’s advocate as I kvetched for months about the Mail’s dishonest practices, often would ask the question, “What is the Mail trying to be? A credible news outlet, or something that’s just for entertainment?”
But it doesn’t matter what the Mail is trying to be. What matters is what it actually is: a publication with millions of readers—many of whom believe what they’re reading—that is not only cited as a credible news outlet by other publications, but is also being held out as the new model for online journalism. With the reach the Mail has come to enjoy comes responsibilities that it either doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care about.
In fact, many posts come out of users’ real-life experiences. One of community manager Krystle Chung’s favorite articles tackles How to Toilet Train Your Cat: “The part that I get a kick out of is one of the tips is, ‘Do not teach your cat to flush.’ It turns out your cat will flush all day long. You couldn’t hire someone to research that tip. Somebody actually found out the hard way.”
Matt Garcia may be only 19, but he’s had plenty of life experiences to share via wikiHow articles. The 21 articles started by the Canadian biology student include this very specific set of instructions, which he wrote while recovering from surgery. He has a heart condition and ended up on life support after having a heart attack in his mid-teens. One of the tubes required for the machines caused nerve damage to his left leg, putting him in a cast and on crutches. “It did feel really good to share that knowledge,” Garcia says.
“It’s one of those things where you’d think it’s a joke article,” Herrick says, “but it turns out this actually happens pretty frequently.” About 400 people die this way every year, and it’s a particular problem in Canada, where 10 percent of drowning deaths happen in vehicles. “We get a lot of people writing and saying that reading about what to do in this situation eases their anxiety,” he says.
4. Internet Skepticism
In another article, about how to treat a common cold, she spotted a recommendation to get a Slurpee from 7-Eleven. “In those cases, I look for reliable sources for information to add,” she says. “It’s about information literacy. You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
Of course, that’s exactly why wikiHow—or any wiki—engenders skepticism. The site does have rules about what kinds of topics can be posted (in short, nothing that can cause harm) and has hundreds of volunteers as well as a few paid staffers reviewing every post. But Wilson is also proof that the system mostly works: Some users might have good ideas for posts, even if they don’t have the knowledge to back them up. Others can come along and add their knowledge. As contributor Betsy Megas says, “The fastest way to a good page is a bad page.”
If only a computer could spit out answers to all of life’s dilemmas, right? Maybe it can’t exactly do that, but it can at least help. “It’s almost as if you have a friend to talk to when you read these,” says wikiHow COO Elizabeth Douglas. “Wikipedia is all factual information, things that are true or false. You don’t find the depth and the breadth and the empathy and the understanding of humans there. wikiHow is about people sharing their experience with others.”
6. Culture of Niceness
The company’s leaders have worked to instill a culture of niceness—which emphasizes positive feedback and personal contact—that frequent users cite as the reason they’ve contributed so much. “We are nice to our community members,” Douglas says, “and we encourage them to be nice.”
Jennifer Lawrence makes $11 million less than Adam Sandler.
The highest-paid female movie star, Angelina Jolie, makes about the same per movie as the two lowest-paid male stars.
Female representation in newsrooms has budged very little since 1999.
Women are vastly underrepresented in sports journalism.
Women were quoted in only 19% of news articles in January and February of 2013.
Women are faring worse at making movies in 2013 than they were in 1998.
Women had fewer speaking roles in movies in 2012 than in any year since 2007.
Our columnists are still overwhelmingly old white men
Only 33 directors of the 500 top-grossing movies from 2007 to 2012 were black (and only two were women).
Here is just the main aspects of an article written by Charlotte Alter on February 19th, 2014. The article is able to be viewed on the Times new website. This article addresses the fact that most people fail to notice. Women aren’t given the same “perks” as their male components. Women shouldn’t be treated less than men. It isn’t right.
Most people probably didn’t know these depressing facts about women in the media. I’ll be honest that I did not either until I found this article and read it. Maybe now we can change this!
Conservative media critics simply cannot abide major news figures wallowing in “obfuscation” and turning a blind eye to “honesty.” Unless his name is Bill O’Reilly and he works for Fox News. Given that blind support, can you imagine how utterly toothless and irrelevant the next conservative campaign is going to be if, and when, it zeroes in on a dishonest news anchor regarding fabrications?