.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Generic Confusion

When you leave, my blog just fades to grey
Nu ma nu ma iei, nu ma nu ma nu ma iei

News? Check. Politics? Check. Music? Check. Random thoughts about life? Check. Readership? Ummm.... let me get back to you on that. Updated when I feel like I have something to say, and remember to post it.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

New hypocrisy

Throughout the blogosphere, we're seeing discussion of Jeff Gannon, a/k/a J. D. Guckert, whose big scandalous crime was to represent an unknown news service and lob softball questions to President Bush at a press conference.

Here, we see liberal hypocrisy again. For some reason, they can't seem to report the story without mentioning that Gannon ran a gay escort web site. Why, I didn't think that's the standard of reporting. You don't see articles mentioning Representative Barney Frank's past scandal with an escort/prostitute/aide (fixing his parking tickets and lying to his probation officer), for which he received a reprimand (not even a censure), every time his name comes up in the news.

Here I thought a person's sexuality is a private matter. In fact, I thought that was the reasoning behind court decisions legalizing gay marriage. And I thought that just because you're a member of an oppressed group, that doesn't mean you can't be a successful doctor, or lawyer, or even journalist.

The rules don't apply when the target is a Republican, obviously.

Just more hypocrisy.

Update: Andrew Sullivan weighs in. He's outraged at the hypocrisy:
Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a "hooker," published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They'd rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can't they? Especially homophobia.


At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joel said...

It's not the fact that he ran a gay escort service that I have a problem with it. It's the fact that he was running an escort service, period. Gay or straight, an escort service is a hard sell for an administration that has prided itself on "traditional values," no? And I do think it's relevant to mention his sexuality when it's connected to his working for a party that relied so extensively on gay-baiting in the last election cycle.

We liberals are also pissed off that this Guckert thing is just the latest float in the Bush Propaganda Parade. When they're not paying people to report the news their way, they are instead permitting faux journalists from faux news agencies to sit in the White House press room so they can toss the president a few easy pitches whenever things get heated. What gives?

At 12:32 PM, Blogger Dave Justus said...


Are you trying to claim that your hypocrisy is ok because of Republican hypocrisy?

How does that work exactly?

At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joel said...

What part of my position is hypocritical? I'm not trying to be accusatory. I really am curious if whether part of my argument comes across as hypocrisy. If it does, it needs to be refined.

At 11:57 PM, Blogger Greg said...

Obviously, I'm going to think of "gay-baiting" differently than you, Joel. I'm going to guess you think supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is gay-baiting. I don't see it that way.

You may not notice that the Republicans don't care about your sexuality. They really don't. If you were working in college admissions at a state university in a state run by Republicans, they wouldn't fire you over your sexuality, nor would they honor you. It's just not relevant.

To the extent that Gannon/Guckert is involved in an unusual (some say immoral) but legal activity like an escort service, that doesn't have anything to do with his skill as a journalist. I wouldn't want someone to say I couldn't report on a presidential press conference because I enjoy legal gambling. Although legal gambling is much more accepted in society, it is still viewed as questionable or immoral by a large minority of the population.

Whether you're being hypocritical or not is hard to say. I firmly believe his sexuality is not relevant, so long as he's not commenting on the subject. On the other hand, pointing out the extreme wealth of people like Michael Moore as they present themselves as champions of the little people is more relevant.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home