All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Last March, “60 Minutes” first ran a story about "The Science Of Sexual Orientation." At the time, Brian Montopoli interviewed Shari Finkelstein, the producer of the segment, about some of the criticisms being leveled at the story and some of the difficult issues involved with covering a controversial topic like this. Since the piece re-aired this past Sunday, we have received many of the same complaints and questions as before and thought it appropriate to re-publish that discussion here. (For a follow-up, see here). Now, here’s Brian’s original post from March:

Because of its religious, political and social significance, the topic seemed destined to invite controversy, and indeed, some blogs have already criticized the piece. (Many others, it should be pointed out, have lauded it.) I spoke to producer Shari Finkelstein about the early criticism, her goals for the piece, and the concerns those involved had in putting it together.

"We felt we couldn't shy away from a hot button issue because people might become upset," said Finkelstein. She said she was concerned about criticism from two groups – the religious right and the gay and lesbian community. Many people in the former group believe sexuality is a choice, and thus would likely not respond well to the contention voiced by scientists in the piece that sexuality is inborn, if not necessarily entirely genetic. She feared some in the gay and lesbian community, meanwhile, might be offended by the portion of the piece that discussed how "the science was showing a lot of stereotypes [about people's voices and movement] could be proved scientifically," though she felt on the whole that gays and lesbians would respond positively to the piece.

Read full post…

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the early reaction to the "60 Minutes" story on "the science of sexual orientation." Here's an update on what people are saying about the story, as well as more response from producer Shari Finkelstein.

A writer at the gay-oriented blog called "Good As You" calls the piece "fantastic" and "fascinating" before getting into the criticism he or she expects:

Of course there will be those who think it unfair that the show did not present the "pro-family" side's position that homosexuality is a choice, and we'd almost guarantee that the 'mo foes will try and debunk CBS's journalistic ethics within the next few hours/days. We'll call them on their bull when that time comes; for now, let's just relish the fact that there are rational folks in this world who seem supportive of the notion that if it's a choice, then your humble scribe's zygote had very strong opinions about boobs.

I haven't seen much in the way the sort of criticism the blogger expects, actually, though there is some to be found in the debate taking place in the comments section of Wayne Besen's blog. Most of the commenters seemed to like the story, but not all of them. "The one thing that you can say in favour of that program is that it is so obviously one-sided and unfair in not giving supporters of the family theories any time to make their case that it isn't likely to convince anyone who hasn't made up their mind already," writes one commenter.

Some of the criticism has centered on Northwestern University professor J. Michael Bailey, who was featured in the piece. Conservative blog Newsbusters goes after "60 Minutes" for including Bailey in the story. "…what [correspondent Lesley] Stahl conveniently left out of her piece and failed to tell the viewing public, is that her “expert” J. Michael Bailey has been exposed and charged for “research misconduct” concerning the research he is best known for on transexuality. Turns out Bailey received many complaints from the transsexual women he interviewed for his book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, saying that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that he distorted versions of their case histories that appeared in his book." Northwestern opened a formal investigation into Baliey's conduct in 2004, and he eventually resigned from his Chairmanship of the Department of Psychology, though he remains a professor at the university.

Read full post…

Yesterday, "60 Minutes" ran a story on "The Science Of Sexual Orientation." Because of its religious, political and social significance, the topic seemed destined to invite controversy, and indeed, some blogs have already criticized the piece. (Many others, it should be pointed out, have lauded it.) I spoke to producer Shari Finkelstein about the early criticism, her goals for the piece, and the concerns those involved had in putting it together.

"We felt we couldn't shy away from a hot button issue because people might become upset," said Finkelstein. She said she was concerned about criticism from two groups – the religious right and the gay and lesbian community. Many people in the former group believe sexuality is a choice, and thus would likely not respond well to the contention voiced by scientists in the piece that sexuality is inborn, if not necessarily entirely genetic. She feared some in the gay and lesbian community, meanwhile, might be offended by the portion of the piece that discussed how "the science was showing a lot of stereotypes [about people's voices and movement] could be proved scientifically," though she felt on the whole that gays and lesbians would respond positively to the piece.

The key for Finkelstein – as it was for Scott Pelley in a piece on global warming – was to stick to science. "We decided we would just look into what the science was showing and report on that, and let people react to what was out there however they will," she said. That meant not including in the piece people more associated with the cultural debate, such as those who argue that homosexuality is a choice, a position most scientists reject. "We just did not want to get into that controversy, because it was not about the science," said Finkelstein.

Read full post…