Out At The New York Times: Gays, Lesbians, AIDS And Homophobia Inside America's Paper Of Record

  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Nov 28, 2012 9:30 PM GMT
    Out At The New York Times: Gays, Lesbians, AIDS And Homophobia Inside America's Paper Of Record


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/new-york-times-gays-lesbians-aids-homophobia_n_2200684.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Nov 28, 2012 9:47 PM GMT
    "There have always been gay people here at the Times, and I'm sure that Frankel and Lelyveld have always known gay people, but there’s never been anyone that high up, that close to them in the newsroom, who is so so well-liked. His coming out has had a profound effect."
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Nov 28, 2012 9:51 PM GMT
    "When it comes to physical contact between homosexuals, the Times is still squeamish. Last year, assistant managing editor Allan M. Siegal removed from an article a photo of two women kissing on the television series L.A. Law. (Ironically, it was to accompany an article by television critic John J. O’Connor about how television makes gays invisible.) Siegal, the Times’s resident monitor of taste, also caused an uproar among gays at the paper last year when he pulled a photo of a Connecticut lawmaker kissing his male lover (as a public act of coming out) during a session of the legislature. The implication seems to be that kissing between men and woman, certainly something the Times has shown before, is OK, while same-sex kissing is in some way distasteful or even prurient."
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Nov 28, 2012 10:11 PM GMT
    Rosenthal admits, “It may be quite possible that I should have approved of the word gay earlier.”

    "But perhaps the most devastating of Rosenthal's misdeeds was his callous indifference to the AIDS crisis early on in the epidemic, a catastrophic ignorance on his part, the outcome of which can never be reversed. "


    "Ironically, Rosenthal, who attacks anti-Semitism in the media, never realized that the way he was treating the AIDS epidemic wasn’t much different from the way that news organizations treated the Holocaust early on."
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Nov 28, 2012 10:33 PM GMT
    "That advocacy block is only just beginning to form at the Times. "There is now a loose, informal social network of gay men and women here at the Times." says real­ estate reporter David Dunlap. "We have talked about the possibility of sitting down with some editors and managers. There is no specific agenda of which I’m aware, though there certainly are issues we want to raise in time, like spousal benefits.”

    Other staffers talk about asking for a full-time reporter to cover gay issues and the gay movement, arguing that during the black civil rights movement there were reporters whose beat was solely that movement as it was crystallizing. Still other staffers have agendas ranging from adding commitment ceremony announcements to changing obituaries (currently the Times will not use the word lover and will not say the deceased is “survived by” his or her companion). In almost all cases, gay Times editors, reporters and photographers are guarded, in that New York Times way, about sounding too much like what they call advocates because they are, after all, "journalists.” But at least one, propelled by forces beyond his control, has comfortably crossed that line."
  • Bakerboy

    Posts: 70

    Nov 29, 2012 1:52 AM GMT
    The New York Times has a really bad history with the LGBT community. Between WWII and 1970, there were a whopping two stories with the word "gay," despite the Stonewall Riots occurring just down the street from their office and homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a disorder. Actually, their entire history is a fantastic example of the influence of owners on their publications. Corporations get a lot of flak for their role in influencing media coverage, but private owners can be just as bad.