An Interesting account in the New York Times discussing how the very liberal, very Democratic New York Times of the 1980s set a national press agenda of nonattention to AIDS. David Dunlap writes:
The Times was “setting the tone for noncoverage nationally,” Randy Shilts wrote in “And the Band Played On” (1987). “There was only one reason for the lack of media interest, and everybody in the [Centers for Disease Control] task force knew it: The victims were homosexuals.”
Oh, sorry, I forget – it was all Reagan’s fault.
6 Comments for “Lest We Forget”
posted by Mark J on
Jeez, Stephen. If you actually read the entire article and the only thing you took away was it wasn’t the great Reagan’s fault and that the evil, liberal NYTimes was the real problem, then either you are a complete fool, or you are just so blinded by your Republican partisanship that you can’t even reason anymore.
Yes, the NYTimes was slow to report on “the gay plague.” Which was only a part of the point of the article you pulled a quote of a quote out of. The article was addressing the fact that back in those much more homophobic times, even gay journalists didn’t want to write about AIDS and he was comparing / contrasting that to the readiness to keep eubola in the headline news today. Precisely because of course, it isn’t a ‘gay’ disease.
Not to mention the fear-mongering on the right, such as you, to try to win an election.
posted by Mark J on
And for the record, even though the evil, liberal NYTimes was slow to start, they were years and years ahead of the Great Reagan who didn’t mention AIDS until Sept. ’85, and then only because he was directly asked a question. He somewhat rallied after that point, however. But still, his glaring inability to address a massive health crisis for a good two years after it was front-page news across the country and world, because of homophobia, doesn’t speak well of him whatever you might believe.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As the article correctly points out, the homophobia of the period hindered efforts to mount an effective response to the HIV/AIDS disaster on many fronts, in politics, in the media and in the medical industry (which, for example, although the medical profession quickly linked HIV transmission to blood transfusions, ignored the fact until many hemophiliacs were dead). The fact that HIV/AIDS was closely linked to gay men, and anal sex, was at the heart of the “silence”. ACT-UP correctly linked the “silence” and the “death”.
Gays eventually forced a response through efforts at many levels, political, media and medical. But not before many died, many, many who might not have died had the response been quicker and more effective. Stephen, I trust, is old enough to have lived through the time when many of us lost friends, repeatedly, to AIDS, and he should know better than to use those deaths as political cannon fodder. Obviously not so.
The Reagan administration’s lack of response in the early years was politically motivated, a response to the religious right, and was not something of which anyone, no matter how partisan, should be proud, argue or try to avoid. Ronald Reagan may have been the greatest of all our Presidents, as modern Republicans like to claim, but he was not without his blind spots and areas in which his leadership was less than adequate.
The only good thing that came of HIV/AIDS was that it made many gays and lesbians acutely aware that we could not depend on our fellow Americans to stand with us until we forced them to wake up and smell the bacon. That lesson is, as much as anything, responsible for individual gays and lesbians standing up to the “we don’t talk about that” ethos that has been the most persistent enemy of equality.
posted by Clayton on
It is not the role of a president to follow social cues established by the press. It is the role of a president to show leadership, particularly (and perhaps especially) in a time of crisis. Was the AIDS crisis entirely Reagan’s fault? Certainly not. Could he have done more? Absolutely. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Should he have acted much sooner than he did? Absolutely.
posted by Jorge on
The media wags used to say that when Arthur Sulzberger Jr. succeeded his father in the 1990s to become the head of the New York Times, that’s when it went south. It was always known for its liberal editorials, but it also used to be universally considered top of the line in its hard news coverage, not slanted like people very easily say it is today.
And the Band Played On was written in 1987.
I’m not impressed by this ideological attack.
Quite the contrary. Now that I consider the argument, I’m a little more convinced the other way. Perhaps if the NYT had been a biased, partisan, or ideological organization, it would not have missed the mark. Maybe it would have been able to pursue a mission of social responsibility in its coverage. Maybe it could have built an audience of intellectuals who, knowing something important, would have pursued what was happening with AIDS.
Perhaps there are good reasons why Sulzberger Jr. pursued the pipe dream that he did. If you find a modern Republican leader who has come face-to-face with the Republican government’s poor response to AIDS and the accusations about it, I am sure you will notice some strange visions, too.
posted by Don on
James Watt and Edwin Meese. That should clear up what people sitting around the table thought of how to handle the situation.