<snip>
Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal’s no doubt pleased with this week’s edition.
His paper made a splash yesterday when it published both an extensive interview with Hillary Clinton and a big, blank middle finger to Barack Obama, who PGN accuses of avoiding the pink press. But an Obama interview isn’t the only thing missing from the paper.
Segal - who did the Clinton interview and also penned an exhaustive editorial bashing Obama’s - failed to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in March of 2007.
That would have made for a good front page.
<snip>
Link:
http://www.queerty.com/obama-blasting-publisher-gave-hillary-grand-20080405/************************************************************************************
Philadelphia Gay News editor goes wild with Clinton Bias<snip>
What's more important is what's missing from the interview (with Clinton):
1. Basic follow-ups: She says she'll support "a comprehensive review" of federal tax code to address same-sex couplehood taxation issues, but it'd be nice to know what that comprehensive review would include. Or he could have asked why her nine-year commitment to end DADT didn't include introducing legislation to end it, a fair question for Barack as well.
2. Questions on LGBT health issues: HIV and STD prevention are good topics to get into, as well as funding of SRS in her health care plan, which, to my knowledge, no one has asked her about. I'd also like to know how she plans on eliminating advantages given to "families" and "married couples" in her health care system.
3. Questions about transgender issues: ENDA, anyone? This interview doesn't mention trans people once, even though the editorial refers to the paper as part of the "LGBT community," the "LGBT press," and accuses Obama of being uncomfortable around "LGBT people." Maybe I've read too much Marti Abernathey, but this feels a whole lot like another case of LGBT-with-a-silent-T.
4. Anything we didn't already know.
........
The editorial blasts (and I don't use that word lightly) Obama for not responding and implies that he's homophobic as a result. He says that Hillary's done a number of interviews with the gay press this cycle Obama's done only one (with The Advocate after the McClurkin incident) while Hillary's done "numerous" interviews. He forgets that highly publicized interview (let's call it what it was) they each did in July along with Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, and Gravel. With Hillary's Washington Blade interview, that makes 2 for Obama, 4 for Clinton. Not much to base a charge of homophobia on or to say that Barack is "uncomfortable" around LGBT people.
Then one has to wonder about how hard he tried to get this interview. He says that he contacted Clinton communications director and immediately got and stayed in touch. He says he tried contacting an Obama fund-raiser and two superdelegates who've said they would vote for him, one who's known him for a long time. But what about going straight to the media contact? It took me all of three seconds to find his campaign's media contact form. Why didn't they try that?
The whole thing reads like something from Taylor Marsh's website, and for good reason. Of everything that the editor considered newsworthy from this experience, he didn't think to mention the fact that he had donated $1000 to Hillary Clinton. Is he looking to better the return on his investment?
He complains that the LGBT press just doesn't get the respect that it should, saying that it is to the LGBT community what the Black church is to the Black community (no, no, no). But a lot of the blame for that situation lies in hijinks like this one.
(Thanks to Queerty for finding the donation info)
<snip>
Link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/6/19406/09795/890/491348:shrug:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
