Representation

Sensationalism and plain social bias are key factors in ensuring that homosexual people remain sidelined. As we say in media writing class, a dog biting a man is generally not news, while a man biting a dog will make it to the papers. Now, whenever a paedophile becomes involved with a young kid, it is invariably something that makes the papers. In fact, it would be wrong not to reveal the presence of such unacceptable behavior. There is no intrinsic moral wrong in doing so.

However, since such crimes are newsworthy, and the achievements of homosexual individuals are hardly so, I imagine the popular representation of homosexual individuals would be quite negative in the press relative to their positive representations. Again, this is not intrinsically morally wrong. It's just media writing and deciding what is nesworthy.

Basically, given that homosexuals are a minority (and all that entails), and are simultaneously under attack by certain groups of people, it stands to reason that these negative representations are simply used as a means by which to condemn them. Undoubtedly, such acts are quite unfortunate and understandably revilved by the community. Worse still, decent gay folk are rendered quite invisible.

Overall, the popular perception is difficult to reverse. The media's other duty is to inform the public, and I believe they are right to reveal the unsavory acts of the black sheep. However, what can be done to help the situation is to give some indication that the crimes, while undoubtedly heinous, are not the norm. Certainly, priests may abuse altar boys, yet I seriously doubt a majority of priests do such things at all, let alone on a regular basis. Should there be an attempt to make peace between the factions (impossible though that may seem at this point), it may be possible to persuade both sides to self police and somewhat improve this sordid situation.