The LA Times Can Tell If You’re Gay

by Jim Washburn

I sent another letter to the LA Times. They never run my letters. Makes me glad I have a blog.

This time, I'm bummed by how desperate they are to prove they're not the "liberal elite" that they're pretty much running unfiltered hate speech with no vetting as to the accuracy of the claims. Pretend for a moment that you're reading the Times' Letters to the Editor:

Does the LA Times have some hyper-accurate Gaydar system at its disposal? How else could the paper so comfortably parrot the right-wing presumption that Judge Vaughn R. Walker is gay? Has Walker--who should know--ever told the paper or any other journalist that he's homosexual? Has the Times interviewed persons who can attest to Walker's gayness, or is it in the public record somewhere?

In the Aug. 13 Times, Walker is referred to as gay in both a news article ("Prop. 8 backers angry at reversal of voter mandate") and on the op-ed page ("A biased Judge Walker wanted to make a political statement").  The news article bluntly stakes, "Walker is a Republican. He is also gay," plus there's a pull-quote that the judge's homosexuality biased his ruling. The claim that Walker has a pro-gay bias was also the entire argument of the op-ed piece.

That's a lot of ink to devote to a presumption. The sole unsourced source that Walker is gay is a San Francisco Chronicle article earlier this year stating it's an "open secret." If a rival paper said it was an open secret that Ransom Stoddard shot Liberty Valance, would the Times print it as fact without verifying it?

There has been some tremendous reporting in the Times of late, but this is sloppy journalism, on an issue so divisive it cries out for factual clarity, context, balance and reason. If the public can't find that in their newspaper, then where?

The "Prop 8 backers" piece is pure gossip-mongering and serves no public good. After noting "Public displays of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling were few and far between," the article goes on safari to find those few, under a pier or somewhere, and quotes individuals on matters of fact with no factual follow-up on their claims. When they say Walker is biased toward gays, shouldn't it be noted that Walker has previously also been accused of being anti-gay, so that perhaps he's neither, and that legal scholars have praised the diligence and fairness of his ruling? Or how about citing the roster of gay politicians who consistently voted against gay interests?

Whether Walker is gay or not isn't news. If he's gay and if it biased him any more than being heterosexual, divorced, evangelical or hungry would, then it's news, but only if those ifs have been answered first, which the Times did not. How about leaving shouting-head journalism to the mediums that can actually shout?

There. That should set them straight. And bring Rick O'Shea back.

Christ, what a non-story. This poor judge devotes months and months to produce a fair, reasoned ruling, and for all these yahoos shouting "Bias!" he might as well have turned in a 1-page ruling signed with his buttprint.

Comments

Comments closed.