I expect blogging to be light for the next few days as I’m off to classes and then will be entertaining some French friends for the balance of the week. As I am now busy polishing a paper on what I previously described as “perhaps the most touching scene in all Greek literature,” I will not be able to comment as much as I had hoped on the bad reporting at yet another outlet of the MSM.
But, other conservative bloggers have done a fine job covering Newsweek‘s woes. Over at Polipundit, Lorie notes that Newsweek is suffering “the consequences of trying too hard to make Bush (and America) look bad.” The magazine has admitted that “it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.”
Glenn Reynolds weighs in here. Powerline has two posts: here and here. There’s good stuff on Roger Simon’s blog and at Captain’s Quarters. Michelle Malkin chimes in here and links to a number of bloggers who have further thoughts on the topic.
I was going to comment on this earlier today, but then, when perusing National Review Online came across Mr. Henricks’ piece on “sexual license” and well, his narrow-minded attitude toward gays got me thinking . . . .

A liberal friend has invited me to appear on his radio show, Harrison on the Edge, tonight, SATURDAY, MAY 14, 2005 @ 8:15 PM on LA’s KTLK, AM 1150. Harrison’s a good guy and we have sparred before, so this should be a great show. Be sure to tune in.

Democrats and their allies in the MSM are so eager for the minority party to keep filibustering the president’s judicial nominees that they have even misrepresented the views of a conservative jurist. Once again, CBS News is deceiving its viewers, using the filmmaking techniques of Michael Moore to edit its segment on judicial filibusters.
In the segment which aired Monday night, CBS made it appear that former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was faulting the GOP’s effort to end the filibuster when he said, “This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.” But, in fact, Judge Starr said that he had addressed that comment “specifcially . . . to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience.” In other words, he was speaking out against the Democrats’ opposition to the presidents’ judicial appointees and not against Republican attempts to end the Democrats’ filibuster of them.
It doesn’t look like things have changed much at CBS since Dan Rather stepped down as anchor.
Hat tip: Powerline and Polipundit, both of whom believe that CBS should release the unedited video of the entire interview with Judge Starr. I agree.
Other bloggers weigh in here, here and here.
UPDATE: While Mickey Kaus is not so sure that CBS distorted Judge Starr’s remarks, Patterico disagrees. JustOneMinute offers his thoughts here. Hat tip (for the update): Instapundit.

While there have been many positive developments coming from 24-hour news networks and the blogopshere, there have also been a few negatives as well. Perhaps the worst is the tendency for the media, particularly the TV news networks, to “swarm” on any allegation of wrongdoing by a celebrity or political figure. Such swarms have existed since the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle. In the early 1980s (just as Ted Turner was launching CNN), the news media breathlessly reported allegations of corruption against President Reagan’s first Secretary of Labor, Raymond J. Donovan. After he was acquitted of all charges, Donovan famously quipped, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”
It is recalling his history, a good man besmirched by reports by media reports of his corruption, that I initially approached the story of Spokane’s Mayor. Since writing my initial post, I have followed the comments (frequently interjecting my thoughts) on Friday and Sunday evening, read a good deal more about the story on the web. As I’ve considered the allegations, I knew that when I first blogged on this, I did the right thing by bolding and italicizing the word, “But,” to distinguish “normal circumstances” from this one.
Given Secretary Donovan’s experience, I’m wary of jumping to conclusions. We shouldn’t condemn someone merely because he exercised very bad judgment. But, as I pondered the fact that more than one man has alleged that Mayor West molested them when they were minors, I heard a line of Colonel Pickering’s (Wilfred Hyde-White) from “MY FAIR LADY” in my head, “I fear you’ve picked a poor example.” If these charges are true, then this story is indeed a poor example of the case against “outing.” Because then it would no longer a question of alleged hypocrisy, but of one of criminality.
[Read more…]

Back in 2002, I had sketched out a joint review of David Brock‘s “BLINDED BY THE RIGHT: THE CONSCIENCE OF AN EX-CONSERVATIVE” and Ann Coulter‘s “SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT,” two books which I read within a few months of each other. I had met both authors in the early 1990s, ironically our initial introductions were through meetings (albeit at different events) of the same organization, the Federalist Society.
Nearly three years ago, I had determined not to write the review because I feared its publication might cause me to be labeled a conservative, which, more often than not, is the kiss of death for aspiring screenwriters in Hollywood. Now, of course, I realize I would rather be honest about who I am than cover up my political beliefs in order to achieve success in Tinseltown.
Both authors undermined the valid points they were making by engaging in polemics to appeal to partisan audiences. Brock attempted to use his anecdotes of the zeal of certain conservatives to bring down President Clinton as a broadside against all conservatives. Coulter turned a book with a smart and well-researched first chapter on liberal misrepresentations of–and diatribes against–conservatives into her own diatribe against liberals. In his book, Brock used too many liberal clich?s about conservatism (which anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading intelligent conservative magazines or blogs could easily debunk). Coulter engaged in the same sort of name-calling she appeared to decry in her initial chapter.
Now, Ms. Coulter is complaining that in her photo on the cover of a recent issue of “TIME” magazine, “my feet are the size of the Atlantic Ocean, and my head is the size of a tiny little ant.” For someone who spends so much time mocking those on the left, her whining seems a little petty.
[Read more…]

After an unusual past few days, I expect to resume regular blogging this week and have much to blog about. For some reason, I haven’t had much energy to write lately, but feel the literary juices slowly returning. Even my journal entries were scant and I let e-mail pile up instead of responding to it. But, I did watch a few movies, including the tacky but fun “CLASH OF THE TITANS” (which butchers the Perseus-myth) the touching documentary, “HIDING AND SEEKING” (which I highly recommend) and (for the first time in my life) “BAMBI.” And I watched an NBC NEWS’ DVD on the Gipper.
It may have been the sweet remembrance of the Gipper — and his stirring words (the DVD included three of his speeches (in their entirety) and excerpts of others) that got those juices flowing again — or it may have been my visit to Barnes & Noble where I picked up a copy of Brian Anderson’s “SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES.” (I wish that I had not purchased the book there as I learned in linking it that I could have saved a few bucks by buying it online. Alas, that I have already written in the book.)
That book reminded me on an article which kept popping up when I read some of the blogs this weekend, the first being on Jeff Jarvis’ Buzz Machine which I got to via Instapundit (who incidentally agrees with the heart of my post, Connecticut in Context.)
Jarvis links to an excellent piece by George Will on declining newspaper circulation. Jarvis thinks we’re at a “tipping point” in media. He has blogged on this earlier (here and here).
Will notes that while the “young are voracious consumers of media, but not of journalism.” When I first read his piece, I realized I had left (and not for the first time) my “LA Times” at the foot of my stairs outside.
[Read more…]

Just today, 365gay.com posted an piece on a Gallup poll showing growing support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I posted on the poll 15 days ago.
UPDATE (04-19-05 11:30 PST): Just before turning in, I noted that Gallup has just posted an analysis of its poll on attitudes toward gay marriage. I have printed it out and will try to comment on it tomorrow (Wednesday, April 20) and note that some readers are clamoring for my views on the new Pope.

BoiFromTroy did a good post yesterday commenting on the president’s indication of support for “placing decency standars on satellite and cable services.”
Boi has it right when he distinguishes broadcast from cable television. Broadcast television uses the public airwavies, but, as Boi put its “you have to actively pursue” cable programmming. You have to pay to get cable.
I agree with many of those who fault many cable programs for their lack of “decency.” (Please note the quotation marks.) I also fault many clubs for playing music so loud that I can’t hear my friends talk. So, I just don’t go to those clubs. As long as they keep the noise within the clubs, that’s their business. These clubs are private places; we can choose to enter (or not to enter) as we will. By the same token, as Boi bluntly puts it, if you don’t want the programming that cable offers, “turn the damn thing off.”
The president seemed to agree, saying, “I think there ought to be a standard. On the other hand, I fully understand that … the final decision is a parent turning off the TV.” Fine, let there be a standard, but let it be set by a private institution. Not enforced by the government.
I don’t disagree about the proliferation of “indecent” programs. (Please note the quotation marks.) But, many people have already responded to this by refusing to subscribe to cable. If those social conservatives are upset by this alleged wave of cable TV “indecency,” then they should mount a campaign against it, appealing not to the federal (or state) government, but to the American people and encourage them to cancel their cable or to write to their cable company threatening to.
I have blogged previously (here and here) that the government shouldn’t fund the media, like PBS or NPR. It shouldn’t censor them either, especially media that people have to pay to watch. The president understands that private institutions, be they religious or secular, do a better job of setting standards than the government. He should apply that understanding here. Don’t regulate the content of cable and satellite TV.

This morning, as most mornings, I flip on FoxNews, make a pot of coffee and go downstairs to get my “LA TIMES.” I used to place that paper in the middle of my desk so that I could get to it as soon as my coffee was ready, but now I just drop it on a stack of papers to the side of the desk. On most days, it sits there untouched until I take it out to recycle at the end of the day.
As I was beginning the day, Fox was airing live the news conference of Michael Schiavo’s attorney (hardly a conservative he). I flipped the TV off as one of Fox’s commentators was about to question a supporter of Mr. Schiavo. Although I was interested in his opinion, I needed to get to work.
Later, in the day, it occurred to me that despite the liberal canard that Fox presents only a slanted conservative view on the news, I realized that, like this morning, that supposedly right-wing network often invites thoughtful, articulate liberals to present their opinions on a variety of issues. Liberal Alan Colmes more cogently presents his point of view than does his conservative colleague Sean Hannity. (And more often than not I agree with Hannity.) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, one of the smartest Democratic elected officials, is a frequent guest on Fox programs. Before U.S. troops liberated Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, Mike Farrell made an intelligent case on FoxNews against the war in Iraq.
For all the liberal bellyaching about Fox, the reality is that while, yes, it does have a conservative slant, it also gives fair hearing to liberal points of view. More often it seems than the “big three” networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) give to conservative points of view. And more often than my now-usually-untouched “LOS ANGELES TIMES” gives to right-of-center viewpoints. Just like Roger Simon, “with the Internet beckoning, most mornings my copy of the LAT sits on my doorstep, only to be taken in as an afterthought, if at all.” Only in my case, I do remove it from the doorstep, only to have it sit unread on top of a stack of papers until it comes time to recycle. Well, that is, unless I need to find out what movies are playing at the multiplexes and art houses near me.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I’d like to celebrate the eve of Dan Rather’s departure with an observation about how the CBS Radio News led off its 7:00PM Eastern “World News Roundup” report.
There are counter demonstrations supported by terrorist group Hezbollah, major news outlets in “Old Europe” are suggesting that perhaps “Bush Was Right” and democracy is definitely on the move as a serious countermeasure to terrorism in the Middle East.
In this backdrop, President Bush delivered a major speech updating the nation (uh, that would be OUR nation) on the War on Terror. But CBS Radio News felt it ranked third in priority order on their newscast tonight. Number two was the Michael Jackson trial.
So of course, what is the most pressing story that CBS Radio News could lead off their major radio newscast tonight?
President Bill Clinton suffering from rare, non-lifethreatening complication. In fact….

“Really, this is a quality of life issue,” said Dr. Michael Banbury, a heart surgeon at the famed Cleveland Clinic. Banbury told CBS News anchor Dan Rather the procedure is designed to relieve discomfort
“It’s not all that serious. First of all, this is not operation on his heart. His heart has already been taken care of. This is just to remove the peel of scar tissue that has trapped his left lung,” said Banbury.

Well, great…. CBS leads with a “quality of life issue” about a former, impeached President. When Clinton switches from Viagra to Cialis… another “lifestyle issue”… will that too lead CBS News?
Could there be any doubt left that America has been brainwashed for decades by the power of the MSM? Good riddance, Dan. Courage.

Despite the title of this post, the men pictured there are not your humble bloggers.

Before I had even read this blog, my current blog-league was already writing about privacy. In his “Opening Salvo (the very first post on this blog), he wrote that he was motivated to enter the blogosphere, in part, “to stop the anti-gay, invasion of privacy campaign against gay Americans.” He expanded upon this in his subsequent post, Mission Statement:

The act of invading someone’s privacy and workplace in order to divulge salacious details of their personal lives reeks of McCarthy-ism at its worst.. . .
Because the leftist gay radicals are so blinded by their rage and hatred, they are now systematically destroying the lives of individual gay Americans themselves! How ironic. So it isn’t John Ashcroft and the FBI peeking in your bedroom, and going through your trash. Nope, it is Michael Rogers and his silent spies who may be stalking you everywhere you go — out to eat, at parties, outside your own home.

And now we have someone offering money to find out the private details of the life of a conservative reporter whose nude pictures have already appeared on various left-wing web-sites.
While those who advocate the publishing of such information may dress up their scandalmongering with fancy rhetoric and noble-sounding ideas, they are little more than the left-wing gay equivalent of a supermarket tabloid. They have anointed themselves as judges of conservative hypocrisy and are willing to expose the private lives of at least two gay conservatives to make their case.
[Read more…]

I had thought that my last piece on “Gannongate” was going to be the last thing I wrote on the topic. But, last night, just before bed, I was perusing Christian Grantham’s blog and chanced upon this post. John Aravosis has republished the post of a “a rich DC socialite” offering $20,000 for dirt on Jeff Gannon.
They

are looking for evidence (photos, phone pictures, locks of hair, DNA on a suit) that Jeff Gannon had any type of sexual, or romantic, relationship with any top-ranking Washington official(s) — or proof that he engaged in any illegal sexual activities or favors.

Not content merely to publish nude pictures of this man, these people want to snoop further into Gannon’s private life. They may be looking for “proof that he engaged in illegal sexual activities,” but they’re also seeking information about the most intimate of his relationships, those of a “romantic” nature.
[Read more…]

A few months ago, I wrote that Lou Chibbaro Jr is “quite possibly the best reporter writing for the gay press.” Today, in “THE WASHINGTON BLADE,” he once again shows his sterling journalistic qualities, writing a piece on the debate over the newsworthiness of the sex life of gay journalists.
In a previous post, I made clear my opposition to reporters (or bloggers for that matter) invading the “private lives of individuals in the public eye.” My blog-league has made that point of numerous occasions, most recently here. On this one at least, we agree with Andrew Sullivan. (I tend to find Andrew at his strongest when he stands up against such invasions of privacy.)
In Lou’s piece today, he covers both sides of the debate, even quoting his own editor acknowledging that their paper erred: “in retrospect, our reporting went considerably further than necessary to raise the ‘hypocrisy’ issue for readers.”
Lou gets it right when he reports:

Had the Guckert story remained focused on whether he had been operating as a conservative shill to promote the president’s agenda, it most likely would have died a quiet death, most media commentators have said.

[Read more…]

Well, folks… you have the opportunity this afternoon to hear me on the John McMullen Show on SiriusOutQ Radio (Channel 149 on Sirius). I’ve been asked to come on at 1:15PM Eastern time for a live interview.
I’m going to be interviewed about the GayPatriot blog, and my thoughts on why my (our) political views are so at odds with the majority of gay people. I figured, “what the hell.” *grin*
Anyway, you can hear the show by linking here and signing up for a 3-day trial period. I just did.
That’s TODAY, Sirius Radio (OutQ) Channel 149 at 1:15PM Eastern Time.

In a comment to one of my posts on Gannongate, Synova alerted us to this insightful post. Reflecting on the “Gannongate” kerfuffle, Tom Veal debunks the notion the Mr. Gannon was a right-wing plant:

A real Karl Rove plant would have asked neutrally phrased questions that offered openings for pro-GOP points that would otherwise get lost in the news shuffle.) His abilities might in time have earned him a significant spot in the small corps of right-of-center journalists, but he was as yet not celebrity, and his employer, Talon News, has a minuscule audience.

Given this miniscule audience, he asks:

why should the Kossacks decide to ride this obscure figure out of town, and why should the elite media now treat him as a poster boy for Rovian dirty tricks? If they regard his day pass to Administration press briefings as a threat, their paranoia surpasses what even I can believe. Rather, we appear to have an instance of policing a leftist plantation. Just as uppity blacks who espouse non-liberal views are reviled, so, too, are homosexuals expected to toe the ideological line. Strays . . . are punished by all available means, including expos?s of their private lives that would be intolerable if conducted by Instapundit or Little Green Footballs.

Hmm. . . . punished by all available means. . . . maybe that’s a little harsh. Or maybe he’s been reading some of the comments to this blog . . . and some of my e-mail.

Videoblogging John Aravosis‘ appearance on CNN, Trey Jackson writes:

Watch this and then ask yourself: Is the MSM giving this much help to Easongate or RatherBiased? Who knew CNN and the MSM were so helpful to bloggers attempting to break a story?

Check out Trey’s posting where you’ll need to click on “WATCH” to see the video.
UPDATE: Dennis the Peasant has an amusing take on this whole thing. Scroll down to the photos. Dennis asks:

Which is more obnoxious, offensive and juvenile? Me cracking the obvious joke about Helen Thomas’ sexual identity via a bit of insensitive gender stereotyping…OR [t]he Internet’s Leftist Crown Jewels savaging [someone’s] sexual identity via a bit of political stereotyping…in all seriousness?

Hat tip: Comment by Richard (#93) to Roger Simon‘s aforementioned post.
And then click, “READ MORE” to read some comments from a listserv to which I subscribe. (Reproduced with the permission of their author.)
[Read more…]

Both Ellen (a straight reader of this blog) and Roger Simon alerted me to an excellent Powerline post on “Gannongate.” (For some reason, the Powerline Permalink is not to the article itself, but to their February archives. You may need to scroll down to HAVE THEY NO SHAME? NO, ACTUALLY THEY DON’T).
As far as the “problem” of reporters asking softball questions (which seems to bug left-wing bloggers the most about this story) Roger asks:

How about Gannon/Guckert goes on Larry King to discuss “the art of the softball”? Speaking of which, has anyone looked into Larry’s background? He’s been throwing softballs for at least four (or is it seven?) administrations. Who’s been paying him? I know – CNN. But there could be more…

Heh.
In addition, Lloydletta alerted me to a great piece detailing the flaws in the liberal bloggers’ case against Gannon.
In the extended section of this post, I have provided some excerpts from Powerline’s post. So just click “READ MORE.”
[Read more…]

After reading GP’s piece on “Gannogate,” I didn’t think I needed to blog on the topic. I thought he had said all that needed be said on the topic, especially his point (which, I believe, is the only media-worthy issue in this story):

. . . if this guy was in fact a job-drifter and possible male prostitute (!!!) then what on earth was the White House thinking in giving him a press pass and access to the White House in this day and age of terrorism?

But, alas, leftist and gay blogs won’t leave the story alone. Even the WASHINGTON POST‘s media critic Howard Kurtz and the Media Research Center‘s Tim Graham have weighed in.
What has really offended me about this whole situation is the pretension of those on the left, notably Americablog’s John Aravosis who, as I understand, broke the story. Somehow, like Michelangelo Signorile in 2001, he thought it his business to publish salacious details about a gay conservative. Back then, Signorile published details about a contact ad Andrew Sullivan had placed on a gay website.
[Read more…]

In response to a commenter, I took a look at the brewing blogosphere story regarding a reporter called “Jeff Gannon” from “TalonNews.com.” Thanks to Lloydletta for this link which provides a good summary.
Now here are my thoughts on this from what I know…
[Read more…]