Let's not discount the resources that make positive change just because that change is small. It's still better than nothing at all.
That's the issue right there. These videos are addressed into the aether, to a general target group. Overall,
do this videos make positive change? Or, on balance, do they do more harm than good? This is a question worth asking. You don't usually install a program without quality control.
I don't know the videos; I don't know about being gay. But I do know that well-meant encouragement can have that isolating effect the article's author is talking about. Yes, you
know they care, they mean well. But that doesn't help. Instead you feel the pressure to get better, so that others don't have to worry about you. I found the metaphorical kick in the ass way more helpful.
People are different. Some draw strength from these videos. Some roll their eyes at them, but ignore them. And some may see them as a sign of business-as-usual (re-inforcing their negative world-view). Do we
know the distribution? Do we know how many people are helped, how many are not impacted at all, how many are pushed further down the road to suicide? This is
not a stupid question to ask. This is
not Mr. Sourpuss speaking.
There are questions of responsibility at stake, too. These videos are a resource. You show them to the depressed (or those on the way). Some of them draw strength from them, others get even more frustrated. If you're drawing strength from the picture, is this your success? If you're getting further frustrated, is this your fault?
If I'm in the latter group, if I get further frustrated, because I think that this campaign shows that even well-intentioned people don't get it, am I supposed to shut up and take it, because there are others that draw strength from these videos? Am I to compare myself negatively to those people? Am I to look at myself as a failure yet again?
And if I do that project, is it enough to provide a resource and push the responsibility to use it onto the intended audience? If someone came to me, saying that these videos will frustrate many of the terminally depressed even further, should I not at least listen, if not look into it?
I'm not saying the program is bad. I'm saying the article has a point, and that it's a difficult situation. I'm saying that I find the article's reasoning plausible enough, so that I will not automatically assume that the program works positive change (on balance; I have no doubt it does in individual cases). And I know from experience that I, personally, do not respond well to it-gets-better messages (although experience reports, which I might find among those videos, might certainly help).
I'm saying that - if the point of the program is to help gays deal with their lives rather than to help people deal with troubling headlines - this is a serious criticism that deserves attention. It's a messy situation. I think that the article is saying that the programs akin to teaching your child to swim by pushing him/her into the water
and then walking away. The article points out problems with the program, and suggests modifications. The article also implies that Mr. Savage (whom I don't know) is resistant to criticism.
The article can be wrong about these points. But personal experience makes the part about depression ring true.