Earlier this week we shared a story about Psychology Today’s decision to keep running paid listings for ex-gay therapists, but it appears that all the bad press was enough to get them to change their tune.
As of now, practitioners of ex-gay therapy will no longer be allowed to advertise their services in the publication.
Charles Frank, who runs Psychology Today’s directory, initially told HuffPost that he had no intention of meeting the HRC’s request to filter out the medically unsound treatment.
Though Frank said Psychology Today is “not a fan” of conversion therapy, he wrote in an email, “We take care not to sit in judgement of others by allowing or denying individual participation.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“There are many reasons why one group of people take issue with another, especially around the sensitive subject of relationships and therapy,” he added. “The Therapy Directory cannot pick winners.”
Four hours after the piece ran on HuffPost, Frank released the following statement via Psychology Today’s 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 reportedly since removed all the profiles in question, saying, “It took me a while to track them all down.”
Ladbrook
Good, but rather sad that it took “public pressure” to convince them not to promote snake oil in exchange for cash.
Cam
“”Though Frank said Psychology Today is “not a fan” of conversion therapy, he wrote in an email, “We take care not to sit in judgement of others by allowing or denying individual participation.””
_________________________
Really? So they were happy to list people whose therapy, the American Psychological Association has termed “Abusive”. Perhaps that organization needs to examine whether or not they should tell all of their members to stop buying this magazine.
rickhfx
Only banned them now? This should have happened a century ago. The mag get a failing grade here. I will never by that hate mag.
Giancarlo85
Psychology Today by going against the recommendation of the APA should be disavowed by all psychologists (at least credible psychologists who don’t practice or believe in this conversion “therapy” bullcrap.
I’m sure most real psychologists laugh at this magazine.
Psychology Today was promoting a “therapy” that wasn’t a therapy at all. And often it had catastrophic consequences including suicide. The “therapy” has a ZERO percent success rate. Some of the so called “success” stories were later found to be at gay clubs, having interaction with someone of the same sex or even going out with someone of the same sex. A ZERO percent success rate alone indicates no credibility.
jwtraveler
@Giancarlo85: I think PT made the right decision to ban ads for conversion therapy, but let’s be clear: It was never PROMOTING conversion therapy. It merely accepted ads from people who practice the therapy. Print (and internet) publications accept ads from thousands of different advertisers for various products and services. Accepting advertising is not promotion or endorsement though it might give the advertiser a sense of legitimacy. Very few publications (most notably Good Housekeeping) actually endorse the products that are advertised.
PT gave in to pressure and did the right thing. Let’s cool it with the hysteria.
Saint Law
@jwtraveler: Providing a public platform for a product or organisation is the very definition of PROMOTING.
Do you sit there and think ‘what’s the most obtuse angle from which I can approach this debate?’
Coz it sure reads like it.
Cam
@jwtraveler:
I know this comparison is a bit hyperbolic, but, would Jet or Ebony Magazine accept ads from the KKK?
You could use the same argument that they aren’t promoting them, just selling them ad space.
Why are LGBT’s still so willing to give bigots who hate us so much more leeway than we would expect other groups to give their own bigots?
Giancarlo85
@jwtraveler: No sorry. They were basically condoning this so called therapy, by allowing it to be published in the first place. They discredited their own publication in the process.
Avery Alvarez
Psychology today just seems like so much of a joke.
Their posts on Facebook are always something you’d see in Cosmo, or maybe even buzzfeed with the same clickbait titles.
“5 ways to keep your man/partner happy”
“10 things your partner finds annoying about you”
“9 things couples worry about”
And of course, it’s always a picture of heterosexuals accompanying the article.
In other words, this publication “psychology today” is more entertainment tabloid than it is anything informative, and seems to rely on dime store psychology that anybody with common sense could figure out.
jwtraveler
@Cam: That’s a ridiculous analogy. I don’t know what you think PT is. It’s not The Advocate, nor is it the publication of the American Family Association. It’s a popular (as in “for the people”) psychology magazine. I’m sure they accept ads for many different products, services and practitioners. They don’t necessarily screen all of them.@Giancarlo85: You guys don’t seem to understand the function of advertising or the meaning of free speech or freedom of the press. And if you think that the media investigate, test, endorse and guarantee the products of all their advertisers, you’re in for a big surprise.
As I said before, I think PT made an unfortunate mistake, which they have now rectified. That doesn’t make them neo-Nazis.
Giancarlo85
@jwtraveler: You are wrong on many levels. I am not taking away anyone’s freedom of speech. They did endorse these people by allowing their names to be published in their directory. This was a directory, not advertising. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press or speech, but more to do with a complete lack of credibility.