Love Me, Mommy

"Cake or Death?" writes about the narcissistic personality disorder and hypersensitivity that than run riot at groups like GLAAD and the ACLU.  Money quote:

"No longer are we looking for mere acceptance. You not only have to tolerate us, but you must like us, love us, watch us do what we do, praise us, and generally fellate our egos until we've had enough and decide to roll over to go to sleep. If you don't? You're a bigot."

Reading this along with Robbie's piece about the gay media makes me wonder more than ever if our "community" will ever have its priorities right.  I suppose if you want more nuanced coverage of figures like Samuel Alito, you'll have to get it from blogs.

(Related: GPW)

Comments

[Dan]

Funny, but when I read this piece I was thinking the exact same thing about Robbie and gay conservatives. You have to give the gay right equal airtime in all media outlets! How dare you not present my viewpoint with the same weighting as your own! I've a mind to start my own website with a gay/right of center spin!

Oh wait, you already did...

[Donald]

I don't know that I would lump the ACLU in with GLAAD. The ACLU has a much broader agenda and fights for everyone's both right and left, liberal or conservative.

They are taking some heat because they are opposing Alito. This is only the third time in the organizations long history that they have opposed a Supreme nomination. The first was Renquist (sp) when nominated by Nixon, they supported him when Reagan promoted him, Bork was the other.

So to link them with organizations that oppose everything Bush / Right wing conservatives do is not fair to an organization that has for generations fought for everyones civil liberties

[Donald]

I don't know that I would lump the ACLU in with GLAAD. The ACLU has a much broader agenda and fights for everyone's both right and left, liberal or conservative.

They are taking some heat because they are opposing Alito. This is only the third time in the organizations long history that they have opposed a Supreme nomination. The first was Renquist (sp) when nominated by Nixon, they supported him when Reagan promoted him, Bork was the other.

So to link them with organizations that oppose everything Bush / Right wing conservatives do is not fair to an organization that has for generations fought for everyones civil liberties

[Malcontent]

There is a difference between equal time (which I don't favor) and balance and accuracy (which I do). The latter implies that one will not leave "inconvenient" details out of a story because they don't support the conclusion the writer wants readers to draw.

I'm so-so at best on Alito, but he is not the man he is being made out to be by his opponents.

[Donald]

Sorry about the double post. I received an error message and posted again. What I said was not brilliant enough to repeat. Happy Thursday

[Donald]

I agree Malc. I am a liberal and I think Alito should be confirmed. He appears to be thoughtful, fair and qualified. If Kerry had run a better campaign we would not be in this position. To the winner goes the spoils.

I am also very disappointed in Biden, since I live in Pennsylvania and we have not had a progressive in the Senate for 40 years many of us have adopted him because Delaware is just a suburb of Philadelphia he is almost a Pennsylvanian. But then again they are all just blow hards.

[Dan]

There is a difference between equal time (which I don't favor) and balance and accuracy (which I do).

Balance and accuracy: The holy grail of modern journalism. But who actually achieves it? BBC News was once a paragon of international reporting - now look at it. I get just as nauseated watching them as I do the folks at FNC.

I could understand your complaint if CNN filed a report similar to 365Gay's. Larger media organizations, especially ones that claim to be 'fair and balanced', do have a responsibility to get both sides of the story. 365Gay is, at best, a niche organization with a very targeted audience. It's only natural that the news coming from this source is going to be a little 'colored.' I mean, as I type this message now, I'm seeing an anti-Alito ad from Lambda Legal. Guess you get pigeonholed by the gay label yourself, Mal.

[Chad]

Donald - I have to disagree with you on the ACLU thing. They're aim is to fight for everyone's rights, but over the years, that's become mere lip service. It's now more like a theory for them, so they can continue under the guise of "we're on everyone's side". And I didn't mean to lump them in specifically with the gay community. I think they've done a disservice to most of the minorities whose cause they claim to be championing.

[Robbie]

Dan - Again, the fact you seem to think noting a judge's ruling in a gay rights case is the "right-wing viewpoint" is far more reflective of the credibility of your politics than mine.

[Malcontent]

365Gay is a news organization, and it is fairly widely read and referenced by the GLBT community. They run wire stories and do enterprise reporting like any other journalistic publication.

Anyone who purports to writing "news" should do so with a basic level of professionalism and standards. Should it be different because you are "niche," or if you have a weekly circulation of only, say, 1,000? Not in my book.

[Dan]

Jeez, Robbie. You sure seem comfortable cramming words into my mouth. I've repeatedly said that the 365Gay story could've been a little more balanced. I really do think that, were this a more exhaustive piece, it should've made mention of his previous rulings. But it's not. Chances are the folks at 365 spent all of five minutes glomming together a few wire stories when they cranked this one out. This kind of 'bias by omission' happens everywhere in the media, especially FNC.

To get back to the main point, Mal was trying to make some observation about how the gay left goes apeshit whenever they think they aren't getting 'proper recognition.' I think your incessant whining about media bias (especially considering how inherent media bias is), is much the same thing. A two bit media outfit like 365Gay puts out a quickie story that doesn't completely jibe with your viewpoint, and you act like it's some crime against humanity. Why not just present your own story and let us, your loyal readers, sort it out? Some of us aren't so naive as to expect a completely bias-free media.

[brian]

Mal,

You said, "The latter implies that one will not leave 'inconvenient' details out of a story because they don't support the conclusion the writer wants readers to draw."

So an example would be this morning's biggest talking point of the right, how Alito's wife walked out of the hearing in tears. The Democrats are such bullies. They are only inflating their own egos. Certainly they couldn't be trying to represent their constituents, who like Bush voters, sent them--not a Republican--to fight for them.

Oh, and Mrs. Alito... apparently it was Republican Senator Lindsay Graham--who may have coached Alito on his testimony (and who I, as a liberal Democrat, really do respect)--who upset her the most because the tears didn't come until his questioning. But the media isn't reporting that. Just the blogs...

[brian]

PS: As to the ACLU/GLAAD... GLAAD didn't sink its teeth into Shalit because he panned Brokeback Mountain, but because he chose to do it with dangerous language that set a double standard. Jack is no more a sexual predator than any other persuer in any other love story. Because he's gay, or because it involved two men, or because Shalit was going for the sensational approach, Shalit chose a vocabulary straight out of Law & Order: SVU.

ACLU-- They do try to fight for the constitutional rights of conservatives but are often rebuffed. Rush Limbaugh didn't mind their counsel, but a lot of other do. And maybe it seems that they are on the left side more often because in recent times its the right that is encroaching more on constitutional principles? discuss. :)

[Chad]

Brian - As far as Alito's wife leaving in tears, I believe (and I could be wrong) that it was the questioning of Democrats before Graham who triggered her reaction.

[Malcontent]

Brian, you won't get much argument from me on your first point. Although I do think the Kennedys, Schumers and Bidens are doing a masterful job of making asses of themselves without the help of a sobbing spouse.

[Robbie]

Dan: Funny, but when I read this piece I was thinking the exact same thing about Robbie and gay conservatives. You have to give the gay right equal airtime in all media outlets!

Robbie: Again, the fact you seem to think noting a judge's ruling in a gay rights case is the "right-wing viewpoint" is far more reflective of the credibility of your politics than mine.

Dan: Jeez, Robbie. You sure seem comfortable cramming words into my mouth.

No, I understood your statement perfectly. My complaint has nothing to do with giving the gay right equal time and everything to do with the media outlet excising the discussion of a gay rights case during the hearings, because it didn't fit their storyline. There's nothing "conservative" or "gay right" about that at all. The fact you've stated (more than once) that it is, is troublesome. Relevant gay issues that don't benefit the Democratic party are now matters of the gay right? That's breath-takingly partisan.

The parallels you're attempting to draw are invalid. This isn't about my viewpoint, but simple objective facts. In the case of GLAAD, people are looking for acceptance of a subjective viewpoint, an attitude, a social change. In my case, I'm asking journalists to simply do their job. Asking a self-professed "news" organization to lay out nothing more than the objective facts relevant to gay issues. Report a story, not a storyline. If you're out to report on issues relevant to the gay community, then report the issues relevant to the gay community. Do not cherry pick them to fit a very specific, narrow, and partisan agenda.

You may not care about this stuff, especially in the gay media, because, after all, you're liberal and they present your biases and prejudices just fine. However, many organizations such as the HRC and the Taskforce are quoted at length in the MSM as the spokespeople for the entire gay community. Fair or not, they are often called upon to represent all of us in the national discourse.

It is vital, then, that these self-proclaimed "non-partisan" entities conduct themselves in an honest and fair manner, with their top agenda being gay equality and not a sacrificing of principles to carry water or peddle their miniscule influence within a highly partisan context.

It goes well beyond mere media bias. It goes to the heart of the gay rights movement, our ability to disseminate our message in such a way that those who disagree with us become more amenable to persuasion. We will never achieve full gay equality by latching onto one political party one strict, uniform viewpoint. We must make entreaties to the political center, both independents and moderate Republicans.

When the gay media, the entities that many pay attention to, that many believe speak for us and our concerns, cannot bring themselves beyond shrill, partisan, close-minded bilge, that harms all of us.

"Media bias. Eh, who cares." That's that attitude of someone who isn't thinking these matters and their implications through. Which is fine, but then why bother engaging in the movement at all if you can't be assed to be at least halfway informed?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Well-put, Robbie.

To me, the insane blindness of the gay left and the gay media was beautifully illustrated in the 2004 election campaigns, when they made clear that Republicans who opposed gay rights for religious reasons were hateful, ignorant, antigay bigots who wanted to march people off to death camps, but dropped millions of dollars on Democrats who opposed gay rights for religious reasons and called them "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".

As a result, three things happened:

-- Antigay state constitutional amendments passed overwhelmingly in states, even with Democratic majorities

-- Republicans still completely ignore them

-- More Democrats like Tim Kean of Virginia have come out openly in favor of stripping gays of rights for religious reasons.

THAT'S why this is important. They chose to whore to get nice cocktail party invitations, and they got treated like a whore; dragged up for public ridicule, ordered to speak only on command and only what they were supposed to say, then unceremoniously dumped on the front stoop the next morning, in the rain, with only empty pockets for their trouble and millions in hock.

Now, we're being dragged up to whore again so that "gay rights" can be used as an excuse to fight someone who might actually allow some restrictions on abortions, much like the majority of Americans want, but which would severely crimp Planned Parenthood's cash flow and influence. Of course our "gay leadership", who thinks it's OK to support the FMA/MPA as long as you're pro-abortion, is falling right in line like the obedient addicts to abortion dollars that they are, and it seems most of the "gay media" is right behind.

I rapped Chris Crain's ass over doing this a few months ago, and it looks like I'm going to have to keep right on doing it.

[Craig Ranapia]

Brian wrote:
GLAAD didn't sink its teeth into Shalit because he panned Brokeback Mountain, but because he chose to do it with dangerous language that set a double standard. Jack is no more a sexual predator than any other persuer in any other love story. Because he's gay, or because it involved two men, or because Shalit was going for the sensational approach, Shalit chose a vocabulary straight out of Law & Order: SVU.

I reply:
While GLADD chose language that sounded like something The Big O and Dr. Phil would hack up after drinking the bong water.

First, the critical observation - I don't know what movies you've been watching all your life but my cinematic memories are full of "(hetero)sexual predators". Now I agree it's pretty strong language, but Vito Russo's 'The Celluloid Closet' (and the film largely based on it) wasn't exactly from the Emily Post school of film criticism. There's plenty to argue with in both, but you better bring more to the table than your "outrage" and "emotional hurt".

FFS, the man gave a movie (a movie written, directed and starring straight men based on a novella by a straight woman, FWIW) a mixed but generally positive review.

If that's "defamation", Neil Giuliano needs to be smacked upside the head with a Concise Oxford Dictionary, Camille Paglia's 'Sexual Personae', the Collected Works of Oscar Wilde or some other weighty tome until he rejoins the reality-based community. And he should also be reminded of the long tradition of robust contributions gays and lesbians have made to the arts and criticism where they'd rather argue that have a nervous break down. And Mr. Shallit, shame on you for your pussy-boy climb down when you had precisely NOTHING to apologise for beyond doing your job as a critic. Mr Wilde should be spinning in his grave.

[Dan]

Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder - that's entirely my point. This was a quick, >500 word report by 365Gay. In those situations you have to make some snap editorial decisions in what to keep and what to leave out. You think they should've included a ruling Alito made some time ago. Maybe the editor wanted to keep the focus on the sparring between Alito and Kennedy. FNC et al. do this kind of stuff all the time. They report on little snippets of the news without providing any kind of useful context and often leave out glaring examples that might contradict the gist of the piece. I stopped pulling my hair out over this bullshit years ago. I suggest you do the same.

[Jamie]

Dan: Maybe the editor wanted to keep the focus on the sparring between Alito and Kennedy. FNC et al. do this kind of stuff all the time.

My two cents: Yes they do; that's why I wouldn't watch them either. Because when you REPORT, you report the facts--ALL of them, whether they favor your particular opinion or not. Anything else is editorializing, which is fine in and of itself, but today's media in general has intertwined the two so much that they're virtually indistinguishable.

I happen to think that 365gay.com puts out first-draft copy without proofreading all of the time. There are constant grammar errors, duplicate words or partial sentences, etc. Any high school english teacher wouldn't give them more than a B- for structure and accuracy.

[Queer Conservative]

Dan - subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder. objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

[Dan]

Right. And unless you're from planet Vulcan, it's unlikely you'll ever achieve complete objectivity.

[Queer Conservative]

Dan, I hope my point didn't part your hair in the wrong place as it went over your head.

[Robbie]

Dan, what you keep missing is the fact that the case I'm talking about was a part of the sparring between Kennedy and Alito.

My problem is, they reported that Kennedy and Alito had a go at one another, noted the details, but mysteriously left out all mention of the case where Alito ruled in favor of the homsoexual defendent.

That's not saving space (they're on the web for a start). And they're not on a deadline, because it would've taken two minutes tops to include the case, especially since it's right there in the transcript next to the part they did mention.

Sometimes I wish Fox news never existed. I'm not much of a fan. But every time you start discussing the media, every single time, a liberal will counter with "But Fox news . . ."

It's wearying.

[Downtown Lad]

365gay.com is about as reliable as Fox News. If you want partisan news stories on gay rights you'll go to 365gay.com. If you want partisan news stories that toot the Republican agenda, you go to Fox News.

If you want real balanced information, you'll read a variety of sources (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist) and make up your own mind.

Cake or Death's writeup is yet another example of a partisan blog entry. He doesn't provide any actual evidence that the ACLU or GLAAD demand acceptance. They don't. Gene Shalit used a very incorrect term in describing the character of Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain. He was NOT in any way a sexual predator. He hasn't even seen the movie himself, so how he suddenly becomes an expert on whether Gene Shalit's comment is appropriate is mindboggling.

GLAAD didn't give a damn about Shalit's actual review. And who cares if Shalit has a gay son. My parents have a gay son and they are the biggest homophobic bigots alive.

I'd really like to see one example where GLAAD "demanded" acceptance. All they demand is equal rights. As they should.