More Dishonesty From the Gay Media

This is getting tiresome. In this article, 365gay.com purports to give its gay readership the relevant details on the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings. What do they note? They cite Ted Kennedy's shameful McCarthyite attempts to smear Alito based on what someone else has said. The senator quoted statements written by people who Judge Alito has most probably never met, but were fellow members of Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Statement after vile statement that Kennedy attempted to use as associative guilt, even though there is no evidence - none - that Alito shares any of those sentiments. In fact, there are sheafs of testimony from women and minorities on what an exemplary man Alito has been in treating those around him with equality and respect.

What does this news article not mention? It does not mention that during Kennedy's questioning, another homosexual issue came up concerning this case where Alito ruled with the majority, "holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation."

If the gay media were remotely interested in informing their readers of all the relevant facts of the hearings, at least a minor note of this case and Alito's comments on it would have been made. Instead, it seems 365gay.com and other publications are more invested in providing their readers with the Democratic highlight reel.

Are there actual journalists in the gay media, or is it safe to assume it mostly consists of mouthpieces for the HRC and other unabashedly partisan groups?

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

It is the latter.

As I've pointed out time and again, the gay media do little more than parrot the talking points of HRC and other groups, who call people who want to ban gay marriage and strip gays of rights via constitutional amendment and Federal legislation "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" because of their political party affiliation.

However, one must realize that this is because HRC, for one, has an Executive Board that is predominantly Democratic lobbyists. They literally cannot oppose or criticize a Democrat without losing money themselves.

This is why Elizabeth Birch and Hilary Rosen twist themselves to the point of being able to self-stimulate when challenged directly on why HRC gives give millions of dollars to individuals whose positions they would blast as "homophobic" if they weren't Democrats; it's also why their lackey Joe Solmonese defended giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a supporter of the FMA because she was a Democrat. And any gay media member who dares challenge this status quo will cost themselves money.

Our community has been sold down the river because a cabal of gays has put greed ahead of its welfare. That's the sad truth.

[Dan]

Is the HRC mostly democratic? Well, probably. Kinda like how gays in general are mostly democratic. Officially the NAACP is party blind too, but umm... well... yeah. Quitcherbitchin and run over to the LCR. They be waitin' for ya.

[Robbie]

Journalists are ostensibly supposed to be interested in being non-partisan, in getting the whole story out, in informing their readership.

These are not activists, nor lobbyists, nor congressional aides. These are journalists.

If gay journalists aren't even going to keep up the appearance of objectivity, then they will never find mainstream acceptance. Their sexuality always considered suspect in how their reporting will be skewed.

This is a bad thing for gay equality. Could you imagine a newspaper considering hiring a gay journalist and then turning him down because it can't trust him not to introduce a horrific slant in his articles?

Apparently this is ok with you. Partisanship before equality. Yep. Just like the HRC.

[Dan]

Robbie, you gotta take a step back occasionally before you go on the attack. I was just referring to the HRC. I was making no reference to the press. Shoot first, ask questions later I guess.

Since you brought it up, however, I think your attack on 365gay for being biased is either disingenuous or naive (or both). Bias in the media? No way! For god's sake, the main banner on their site (right now) screams: 'Homophobic Disgraced Judge Runs For Governor.' I think that lets you know what you're getting into.

So now you know how I feel when I'm watching FNC. Could their article have used a quote from a right-wing gay group? Sure. Other than that, I don't see what your issue is.

[Robbie]

"Quitcherbitchin and run over to the LCR." = So? It's no big deal. Who cares.

I'm neither naive, nor disingenuous, as implied by the very first sentence of my post. I'm more than aware of this behavior.

What I'm pointing out is the gross disservice gay media outlets perform for their gay readership. Informed homosexuals, homosexuals who have all the facts, who are given questions to ask, things to think about are homosexuals that are better equipped for grappling the issues necessary to achieve political and social equality.

Cable news bothers me with its blatant cheerleading for the parties. They're not interested in informing - they're interested in indoctrinating propaganda (a.k.a. talking points, because it sounds less insidious). It actually makes for a dumber electorate.

And so it is with gay media. They actively set out to stupid up gay readers by withholding vital facts necessary for a full understanding of the issues. If it's all left-wing all the time, people aren't going to understand why they're being defeated at the polls. How can you engage a political opponent effectively, if you have no idea what they're all about? It's easy to go "Bigots! Homophobes! Evil!" but that isn't exactly getting anyone gay marriage, is it. And because they don't have the facts, many gays don't even know why they've repeatedly gotten their clocks cleaned on election day.

"It's because they're bad people!" Oh, really? No wonder they don't listen to a word being said. Sure, that'll win them over.

[Dan]

News Flash Robbie: 365Gay is supposed to be gay news 'with attitude.' That becomes abundantly clear after even a cursory view of their headlines. It isn't meant to be the NYT.

Even with this in mind, I don't see what your issue is. 365Gay, as the name of the site implies, is supposed to be about news stories that are relevant to the gay community. A prominent senator and a supreme court nominee had a heated exchange that included mention of gay rights. So they reported on it. They were balanced enough to report on Alito's complete disavowal of his former alumni groups racist and sexist statements. Could they have gotten a response from a right-wing gay rights groups? As I said, that would've been nice. But if you're looking for a broader view of the Alito hearings, I think you need to look somewhere other than a site that's exclusively devoted to gay related news.

[Robbie]

But this is what I find mind blowing. Even mentioning the case discussed during the hearings where Alito ruled in favor of a homosexual plantiff is considered right-wing?

I'm not saying the case exists, and the news article should've brought it up. I'm saying, the case was discussed during Kennedy's questioning in today's hearing.

If you're going to round up the homosexual issues relevant to today's hearing, why would they omit the discussion of that case? Gay harrassment in high schools and the negligence of some school districts in combatting it is one of the most relevant gay issues out there.

And yet this gay medium made no mention of it. None. Why? Because it Alito ruled in favor of gay rights.

It's an unconscienable ommission.

[Queer Conservative]

So Dan, you're saying the gay media SHOULD be biased toward the left? That's some low expectations you got there.

[Robbie]

And the other point you're implying is this:

If I want to know the whole truth about issues relevant to the gay community, I basically have to look somewhere other than the gay media.

You don't see what's really off about that?

[North Dallas Thirty]

If you're going to round up the homosexual issues relevant to today's hearing, why would they omit the discussion of that case? Gay harrassment in high schools and the negligence of some school districts in combatting it is one of the most relevant gay issues out there.

And yet this gay medium made no mention of it. None. Why? Because it Alito ruled in favor of gay rights.

Right on, Robbie.

That more than anything else makes it starkly clear that this whole thing on the gay side has nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with an evaluation of how Alito would be for gay rights. This article takes the one known, FACTUAL documentation on which Alito actually ruled and made his own statements and throws it out in favor of attempts to smear Alito by association with OTHER peoples' statements.

I will give the Washington Blade some credit; their report on the hearings, surprisingly, includes that fact and additional detail.

However, what it also points out is who is opposing and why Alito is being opposed, which is illuminating in and of itself.

Seven national gay rights groups, including Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, are opposed to Alito’s nomination. The gay groups are part of a coalition of civil rights, women’s, disability and liberal advocacy groups opposing Alito on grounds that he would tip the balance of the court to a conservative body hostile to civil rights and minorities.

Among those is no doubt EMILY's List. Of course, conveniently overlooked is the fact that EMILY'S List supported individuals like Inez Tenenbaum, candidate for the Senate seat from South Carolina in 2004, who also supported the FMA and MPA.

WHY are these groups allying, even when it's been made clear that these groups will ditch gays in a heartbeat or give money to people who are blatantly antigay? Why do gays have to be pro-abortion?

Because if they aren't, lesbian power brokers like Ellen Malcom and their lackeys like Joe Solmonese lose money. Once again, stripping gays of rights is legitimized if it advances the abortionist cause.

[Jack Malebranche]

If I want to know the whole truth about issues relevant to the gay community, I basically have to look somewhere other than the gay media.

Sounds about right. Some people want to read the news and think about it. Most want to have their worldview confirmed and repeated back to them. It's exactly like watching news coming from the ghettoized Christian news programs, where everyone who isn't catering to Focus on the Family has an insidious plot to undermine 'Christian freedom' and transform wholesome America into a new militantly atheist Sodom and Gomorrah. People go to their minority news outlets for news viewed through the lens of their minoritty's status quo.

I will say, in agreement with Dan, that I have never considered 365gay a remotely serious news outlet.

But the kind of people who proudly wore pride rings through the 90s (I hope that stopped...haven't been to a gay ghetto recently) probably DO get their propaganda news through fluff outlets like that, which explains why their 'opinions' match the previously mentioned 'talking points' so perfectly.

[Jack Malebranche]

Why do gays have to be pro-abortion?

Because if they aren't, lesbian power brokers like Ellen Malcom and their lackeys like Joe Solmonese lose money. Once again, stripping gays of rights is legitimized if it advances the abortionist cause.

I'm anti-lesbian. I really think they should start their own group and leave men out of it. Their interests seem to be skewed in a completely different direction. But enough misogyny from Jack.

Every time I think about the idea that the interests of men who have sex with other men are in any way linked to the right of women to have an abortion, it becomes more laughably absurd.

What legitimate and compelling interest do men who have sex with men (or, one would think, women who have sex with only women) have in reproductive issues? Homosexual men should never have to be in the position of needing an abortion, unless they trip over a faghag and have a "The Next Best Thing" moment. Ditto for dykes. No one should theoretically care less about reproductive rights than homosexual men, as a group.

Personally, I think they should give a coupon for a free abortion (or sterilization) with every purchase of $20 or more at Wal-Mart, but hey, that's just me.

It's certainly not a deal-breaking issue for me either way, I can tell you that.

[Craig Ranapia]

Dan wrote:
News Flash Robbie: 365Gay is supposed to be gay news 'with attitude.' That becomes abundantly clear after even a cursory view of their headlines. It isn't meant to be the NYT.

I reply:
Well, if you're talking about the Raines-of-Error NYT (Jayson Blair, the blatant front page distortion of their own polling, MoDo doctoring quotes in her asinine columns etc.) I certainly hope not.

But, FFS, this is plain insulting - I worked as a hard news reporter and busted my hump to report the news, make sure what I wrote was accurate and balanced, restricting my commentary to the occasional op-ed I was invited to write (which was clearly marked as 'opinion' not news), and I certainly didn't slap my by-line on a lightly edited press release from ANY lobby group.

Outlets like 365Gay.com are constantly bitching that they have to exist because the homo-hating MSM doesn't give it to us "straight" where gays are concerned, but plays the same old bullshit game of distort, smear and spin that seems awfully familiar. Well, it's just not good enough - you want to be taken seriously, do the work and get it right. Good on people like Robbie who aren't going to give substandard and unethical reporting a pass simply because it's wrapped in a rainbow flag.

[Anthony]

Is there an expectation that with any minority media outlet the standards are going to be lower as far as objectivity goes? I know that I don't expect Gay media (or Anglican media, or Polish-Canadian media) to be an objective view of a particular story. The story is more a way to get an insight of how that group generally thinks.

I am much more appalled by what I consider the "objective" media - and, yes, we're talking the main liberal papers and networks here - go out of their way to fake or spin a story.

[Craig Ranapia]

BTW, if we want to try guilt by association perhaps we should ask whether Kennedy is a racist and a homophobe by association with Bob Byrd - who has the dubious distinction of being the only Senator to vote against the confirmation of both black Supreme Court Justices. (Hell, even Strom Thurmond could bring himself to support Clarence Thomas.) Doesn't exactly have a glowing record on gay rights either...

[Jamie]

All one has to do is look at 365gay.com to realize there's an agenda there. How many real news sites have half-naked men on the front page every single day? It would be a truly inspiring thing to find an actual "gay news" source that I could read at work without worrying if someone thinks I'm looking at porn! The Washington Blade isn't any better--any paper that endorses Jeff Gannon as a contributor has zilch for credibility in my book.

Gotta say, I laughed out loud at the whole "Wal-mart coupon" idea. I'm pretty much right there with you on that one. I'll never get an abortion, so why should I worry about it? My OPINION is that abortions should be rare, but there are circumstances where they need to be allowed. Does that make me "pro-abortion?" I hardly think so. But sometimes it may be a necessity. . .

[Craig Ranapia]

Anthony:

There must be a lot of Trekkies in the so-called "minority media", because it can feel a lot like a newsletter for the Borg Collective.

[Dan]

Fine, call bullshit on 365Gay. I've never said they're above reproach. I just find it silly that you'd get all worked up about a gay news outlet that happens to have a leftward slant. Even my favorite news source in the world shows their bias on a pretty regular basis. That's why I get my news from as many different sources as possible, including such liberal havens as FNC, the WSJ and the Washington Times. Media will always have some bias, it's just a fact of life. Even well respected papers, like the NYT and the Washington Post can't escape criticism on the front (as Craig amply showed).

This has always been a pet peeve of mine - conservatives bitching about media bias. The mistake is in relying on one news source to be perfectly balanced and fair. Why I find it especially ironic is that those same whiney conservatives all flock to one of the most biased media outlets on the planet, FNC.

[Jeff]

Y'all are debatin' a dead horse. For cryin' out loud! EVERYONE knows News agencies are biased. Everyone's is biased. Tighty Righties and Lefty Loosey's are both like semen on a falopian highway, all trying to get there first.
And, we overlook the precious right that we have to be biased, and to scream out loud that that other queen in biased. Who cares if Bill O'Reilly isn't exactly fair and balanced and that Anderson likes to bitch slap senators from time to time? In this day and age when the basic tenets of our constitution are being challenged (what the threat is depends on which side of the aisle your favoring) we need to stop wasting time on the PC crap and focus on the basics.
I lean left, but I gotta tell ya, I aint giving in to the hype that Alito is evil and must be stopped. I live near him, and my neighbor across the street is a retired State Supreme Court Justice who worships Maureen Dowd but is of the opinion that Alito is simply a good and decent man. We need more good and decent people in public service. And I aint afraid of some of them being from the other side. Our magic is in the mix.
Bravo to Ted Kennedy, we need gadfly's to sting us in the ass. And Bravo to Chairman Spector for cracking the ruler across those maritinied knuckles when Teddy pushed too far. And Bravo to Dan and Robbie, et al. For demonstrating the privilege of free press and speech. But Robbie please, how much objectivity can you expect from 365Gay? Thats like trying to order Prada from International Male.

[Bruce (GayPatriot)]

Robbie-

I must note that there is an ad on The Malconent urging that the "Alito Agenda Must Be Stopped!"

Kind of ironic, no?

-Bruce

[Malcontent]

Is it ironic that media outlets accept ads with messages that their owners, editors or reporters might disagree with?

[Robbie]

Plus it gives us "fair and balanced" credentials.

[Bruce (GayPatriot)]

LOL. Don't be sooooo defensive!

[Jack Malebranche]

Jaime -

It would be a truly inspiring thing to find an actual "gay news" source that I could read at work without worrying if someone thinks I'm looking at porn!

In all fairness, it's hard to find anywhere on the Internet that doesn't look like borderline porn at work. A lot of ads, even on regular sites, manage to put a half screen ad of whomever in a swimsuit alongside even the most harmless and non-sexy content. Straight advertising is so close to soft porn that I'd be suprised if everyone isn't just getting immune to it. Just like no one would fault you for receiving an email advertising teenage girls getting banged by horses...who hasn't got that one?

But I have to agree that, even in this context, the gay media is ... 'torso heavy.'

Gotta say, I laughed out loud at the whole "Wal-mart coupon" idea.

Thanks.

I mean, they have an in-house vision clinic. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine associating responsible eugenics with everyday low prices, right?