More Ideological Conformity than Journalism

Update:Buttigieg walks back his criticism of LGBTQ+ media. The hammer, apparently, came down, or his advisors pointed out that LGBTQ+ media has been pivotal in gearing up gay fundraising for him. Others of us stand by our criticism, as below.


8 Comments for “More Ideological Conformity than Journalism”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “How different would it be if you were quote unquote ‘more effeminate?’”

    Huh?

    Maybe I’m confusing being femme with being babyfaced.

    Shades of Jesse Jackson vs. Barack Obama.

    Reply
  2. posted by Mike and David on

    Hmm. I was not aware that the author existed, let alone had a new book out. The thrust of the article seems to be “please, please notice me, and buy my book”. I find this to be funny given that he says that Sam is just seeking attention. Oh, well.

    When you live in rural America — outside of the comfortable blue zones — it is nice to be able to read about LGBT news. I do not see that happening without a ‘gay press’, so I think I will keep reading it.

    Reply
  3. posted by Mike and David on

    >>>that even a very liberal gay man like Buttigieg feels so strongly that they’re out on the fringe that even he can’t stand reading them.<<

    Pete is hardly "very" liberal. When you look at the slew of Democratic party primary candidates — the major ones — he is much more in the center.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Pete is hardly “very” liberal.

      1) Supports permitting abortions at any point in pregnancy

      2) Supports a public insurance program “for all who want it”.

      3) And free college.

      4) Repeatedly accuses conservatives of misinterpreting the Bible.

      “Very” liberal is exactly right. And that’s without being able to remember the parts of his debate performances that made me want to vomit.

      Reply
      • posted by Kosh III on

        “4) Repeatedly accuses conservatives of misinterpreting the Bible.”

        Because they are wrong, deadly wrong.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      4) Repeatedly accuses conservatives of misinterpreting the Bible.

      I think that the views of Tony Perkins, the author of the 2016 Republican National Platform on homosexuality, recently appointed by President Trump to the panel on international religious freedom, put Jorge’s point into perspective from a conservative Christian point of view.

      From the April 8 edition of Fox Nation’s Starnes Country:

      TONY PERKINS (FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL PRESIDENT): The issue is not that the Mayor Pete [Buttigieg] has issue with the words of Mike Pence. I think he has an issue with the words of Scripture. The Scripture speaks clearly. This is where evangelicals are at. Look, when you go back to — and we’ve gone through this so many times, I’m not sure how many more times we have to repeat this when it comes to evangelical support of Donald Trump. The reason evangelicals were thrust into the arms of Donald Trump was because of the hostile policies of Barack Obama, promised to continue under Hillary Clinton. But what they found out was Donald Trump, while he may not have been their first pick, his policies have been unlike any other Republican president we have had when it comes to the issues of life, the issues of human sexuality, whatever, religious freedom, you name it. This president has actually not just been talking about. In fact, he doesn’t use the rhetoric of Scripture. He just actually does policy that is in line with Scripture.

      TODD STARNES (HOST): Yeah Tony, there are a couple of things, though, that concern me about what the mayor is saying. It’s — he’s basically telling his crowd there and his followers, supporters that if you support traditional marriage, you’ve got a problem with God.

      PERKINS: Well, yeah. I mean, look, you even have pro-LGBT researchers now saying, “Look, it’s time to drop the immutability claim.” There’s just no evidence to support that. I know if you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it, which is what’s happened in this country. But the fact is, God does not create people that way. Now, there’s circumstances that lead one maybe down that path, and I’m not saying anyone would choose that lifestyle. But to say that they were made by God. First off, the science doesn’t back that up, and Scripture doesn’t back that up, because Jesus himself spoke to what marriage was. And Matthew also spoke to what gender was. I don’t hear Mayor Pete quoting that.

      STARNES: Tony, what concerns you big picture here? I mean, when you look at the attacks on the second lady Karen Pence teaching at the Christian school. You see the continuous attacks on Christianity in the public marketplace, and now here you have this guy, Mayor Pete, blasting evangelical Christians, calling them hypocrites.

      PERKINS: Well look, I think you have to be very careful. Scripture warns of wolves in sheep’s clothing coming and talking smooth, trying to be all things to all people. The reality is he’s advocating for policies that are not in line with the Scripture. You can talk about words. You can use the rhetoric of Scripture, but your policy has to match it. And when you’re talking about ending the lives of unborn children. When you’re redefining god’s institution of marriage, you can’t claim to be carrying out the policies and principles of Scripture when you’re doing things that are 180 degrees from it.

      Perkins is something of a moderate in conservative Christian circles, in that he hasn’t pounded on Leviticus 20:13 for quite a number of years. The comfort for conservative Christians, if there is any, as Christians abandon the clear teachings of that passage, is that Mayor Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, are going to spend eternity in hell, tortured and tormented.

      As Brian Fischer of the AFA put it:

      “There’s a whole lot of sins that will keep you out of the kingdom of God. Here’s just a sample: Sexually immoral can’t get in. Idolaters can’t get in. Adulterers can’t get in. Men who practice homosexuality, and the term that Paul uses there, he uses two different terms: one for the active participant, the other for the passive. In the homosexual community, one is called the bottom. The other is called the top. Not going to go into any more detail about that, but here Paul is talking about both parts of a homosexual liaison — neither of them is going to make it into the eternal kingdom.”

      But, as Republican blogger Erick Erickson tweeted, “If Buttigieg thinks evangelicals should be supporting him instead of Trump, he fundamentally does not understand the roots of Christianity. But then, he is an Episcopalian; so he might not understand Christianity more than superficially.” So perhaps Mayor Buttigieg is not entirely culpable, because (being an Episcopalian) he has never heard the authentic word of God.

      Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    When you live in rural America — outside of the comfortable blue zones — it is nice to be able to read about LGBT news. I do not see that happening without a ‘gay press’, so I think I will keep reading it.

    I read the Advocate online edition roughly once a week, the Washington Blade occasionally. Although much of the content is irrelevant to me (like you, I live in a rural area outside the comfortable blue zones, so the latest parties don’t count for much in my world) I think that the “gay press” is useful and I hope that a few outlets survive and thrive.

    The mainstream media is giving increasing coverage to LGBT issues, though, and I think that is a contributing factor to the reduced importance of the “gay press”. Twenty-odd years ago and before, the “gay press” was the only source of news about the LGBT community, and had much greater importance to gays and lesbians. It is part of the assimilation process to see the weaker organs of the “gay press” fall away.

    In the same way the gay press has staggered on, mainly online, long after it should have shut up shop.

    Such nonsense. Douglas Murray is yet another right-wing Brit faux-provocateur coming over to make his fortune amongst the rubes, being as obnoxious as possible to get noticed. Just about the only people who take him seriously are conservative homosexuals, who rave about how daring he is while they sit around in their tassel loafers daydreaming about all the fun they’ll have at the next LCR cocktail hour. He’ll go the way of the last best and brightest of the genre, Milo Sillyopoulous, in a few years, because people like him are the shock jocks of the conservative homosexual movement, and sooner or later disgust even the tassel-loafer crowd basking in reflected “courage”. Count on it.

    The gay media’s politics are frankly more in line with a university gender studies department than with real-world gay peoples’ values. It really speaks volumes that even a very liberal gay man like Buttigieg feels so strongly that they’re out on the fringe that even he can’t stand reading them.

    Several quiet notes:

    (1) Mayor Buttigieg is “very liberal” only in the fetid imagination of conservatives. Mayor Buttigieg’s policy positions are center-left for the most part, he is smart as a whip, and he is moderate and reasonable in his rhetoric. I don’t think that he will get the nomination, but I support him.

    (2) Mayor Buttigieg’s comments about the LGBT press have nothing at all to do with the either of the great conservative homosexual bugaboos, “identity politics” (as in White Indentity politics, for example) or “intersectionality”. His comments also are not an indication that he “feels so strongly that they’re out on the fringe that even he can’t stand reading them”, which is made evident by the NBC News article linked in the post:

    During a radio interview on Wednesday, SiriusXM host Clay Cane of “The Clay Cane Show” asked Buttigieg, who would be the first openly gay president if elected, about criticisms in “LGBT circles” that “more masculine-presenting men have more access,” posing the question, “How different would it be if you were quote unquote ‘more effeminate?’”

    “It’s tough for me to know, right, because I just am what I am, and you know, there’s going to be a lot of that,” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, responded. “That’s why I can’t even read the LGBT media anymore, because it’s all, ‘he’s too gay,’ ‘not gay enough,’ ‘wrong kind of gay.’”

    “All I know is life became a lot easier when I just started allowing myself to be myself, and I’ll let other people write up whether I’m ‘too this’ or ‘too that,’” he continued.

    Mayor Buttigieg later reflected on his comments during an interview with Alex Berg of AM to DM with Buzzfeed News interview:

    Ahead of the LGBTQ+ Forum, Mayor Pete Buttigieg made controversial statements about his relationship with queer media. In an interview with Sirius XM radio host Clay Cane, the Democratic presidential candidate said that he didn’t read LGBTQ+ media. And while many expected for him to be asked about those statements at the forum — Out editor-in-chief Phillip Picardi specifically requested that he be asked that in a thread on Twitter — he was not. As The Advocate’s editor-in-chief Zach Stafford revealed today, that was because Buttigieg was asked that question in a separate video interview for AM2DM by BuzzFeed News, a show that Stafford co-hosts.

    “You said in an interview that you ‘can’t even read LGBT media anymore because it’s all he’s too gay, not gay enough, wrong kind of gay’” show co-host Alex Berg said in a clip posted to Twitter today. “And Out Magazine editor-in-chief Phillip Picardi tweeted this question: When LGBTQ+ journalism is dwindling despite our rights being threatened at higher rates, why come for queer media?”

    “I appreciate the question and the chance to clear this up,” Buttigieg responded. “Just to be clear: LGBTQ media plays an increasingly important role, especially at a time like this. I had a grumpy moment where I was thinking about some of the coverage that I do get frustrated with that seems to tell people how to be gay. And that’s, to be fair, happening in a lot of different sources and places online and it’s one reason why, as a candidate, it’s healthy just not to read too many clips about yourself to begin with.

    “But I don’t want to take away from the very important work that’s being done in the queer media right now.”

    I think that it was a mistake for IGF to conflate the issues.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Just about the only people who take him seriously are conservative homosexuals, who rave about how daring he is while they sit around in their tassel loafers daydreaming about all the fun they’ll have at the next LCR cocktail hour. He’ll go the way of the last best and brightest of the genre, Milo Sillyopoulous, in a few years, because people like him are the shock jocks of the conservative homosexual movement, and sooner or later disgust even the tassel-loafer crowd basking in reflected “courage”. Count on it.

      That was a fun burn to read.

      And since I *am* sitting in my loafers about a week too long (again), I think it’s time to log off.

      Reply

Leave a Comment