Dan Savage to WaPo: [unprintable]

‘rainbow’
courtesy of ‘redjoe’

Those of us who’ve long since jettisoned the WaPo’s daily pages from our lives missed it, but WaPo ran a piece from staunch anti-gay Family Research Council head Tony Perkins this week (find it yourself – I’m not linking that garbage). When criticized about it by GLAAD via twitter the WaPo twitter account said that it was a result of trying to cover both sides – after all, they’d had a live chat with Dan Savage about the It Gets Better project we mentioned here last week.

GLAAD and plenty of others have castigated the person driving the WaPo twitter account with the simple message that there’s not two sides to suicide, just tragedy. Dan Savage’s own reply was brief and on The Stranger.

Dear Washington Post…

…if you had told me that my doing a live chat with your readers about the It Gets Better Project was going to be used as an excuse to publish the hateful, bigoted lies of Tony Perkins, I wouldn’t have done your fucking live chat.

I’m sure WaPo will be sad to learn that both items came too late for Aiyisha Hassan who attended Howard University last year. The self-identified lesbian took her own life at home in California on the 5th, an action a fellow Howard student attributed second-hand to her issues with her sexual identity.

If you’d like to call the Washington Post ombudsman and express an opinion on their commitment to balance, the number is 202-334-7582

Dear Washington Post…

Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:21 AM

…if you had told me that my doing a live chat with your readers about the It Gets Better Project was going to be used as an excuse to publish the hateful, bigoted lies of Tony Perkins, I wouldn’t have done your fucking live chat.

Don Whiteside

Well I used to say something in my profile about not quite being a “tinker, tailor, soldier, or spy” but Tom stole that for our about us page, so I guess I’ll have to find another way to express that I am a man of many interests.

Hmm, guess I just did.

My tastes run the gamut from sophomoric to Shakespeare and in my “professional” life I’ve sold things, served beer, written software, and carried heavy objects… sometimes at the same place. It’s that range of loves and activities that makes it so easy for me to love DC – we’ve got it all.

5 thoughts on “Dan Savage to WaPo: [unprintable]”

Powerful statement, but dead on. The Post is so terrified of being labeled as a liberal paper that they overcompensate by publishing complete BS, far-right views so they can point to it as being balance. We’d be far better off if they just skipped opinions of all types and just reported the news, they can provide a balanced liberal and conservative slant in that context without publishing hate pieces because they feel they have to.

I’m not certain that avoiding opinion is really the way to solve the problem. That tends to preclude analysis, and we need more critical analysis, not less. I think what would solve the problem more readily would be to put on their big kid pants and understand that there’s always going to be someone trying to assign an agenda where there isn’t one, so the way to treat hate mail accusing you of being “the liberal media” is to laugh at it. Loudly. Preferably by forwarding it around the newsroom.

I suppose I disagree about where the line is between opinion and analysis, but the lines are blurry. Every analysis involves personal input so it does naturally include a slant in one direction or the other based on ones life experiences, upbringing, etc…but I don’t see that as being purely opinion oriented pieces like this. The vast majority of “opinion” pieces in the Post and other publications are just agenda driven PR more than anything, they are not what I would actually consider analysis.

What’s so silly about it is that this insane commitment to providing two sides doesn’t even insulate them from bias. A few years ago I was asked to find a piece in the WaPo and circle all the judgment words. It wasn’t even a challenge.

Which is fair – it’s HARD to write something good and accurate on deadline and not let some bias creep on. I think it’s inevitable. But if the WaPo wants to make a commitment to balance they have other ways they can do it without lowering the quality of their reporting. Refusing to take a stand on a concrete fact isn’t better news, it’s worse.

Pingback: Tweets that mention Dan Savage to WaPo: [unprintable] » We Love DC -- Topsy.com

Karl Johnson on October 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm said:

Powerful statement, but dead on. The Post is so terrified of being labeled as a liberal paper that they overcompensate by publishing complete BS, far-right views so they can point to it as being balance. We’d be far better off if they just skipped opinions of all types and just reported the news, they can provide a balanced liberal and conservative slant in that context without publishing hate pieces because they feel they have to.
Tiffany Bridge on October 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm said:

I’m not certain that avoiding opinion is really the way to solve the problem. That tends to preclude analysis, and we need more critical analysis, not less. I think what would solve the problem more readily would be to put on their big kid pants and understand that there’s always going to be someone trying to assign an agenda where there isn’t one, so the way to treat hate mail accusing you of being “the liberal media” is to laugh at it. Loudly. Preferably by forwarding it around the newsroom.
Karl Johnson on October 13, 2010 at 5:23 pm said:

I suppose I disagree about where the line is between opinion and analysis, but the lines are blurry. Every analysis involves personal input so it does naturally include a slant in one direction or the other based on ones life experiences, upbringing, etc…but I don’t see that as being purely opinion oriented pieces like this. The vast majority of “opinion” pieces in the Post and other publications are just agenda driven PR more than anything, they are not what I would actually consider analysis.
Don on October 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm said:

What’s so silly about it is that this insane commitment to providing two sides doesn’t even insulate them from bias. A few years ago I was asked to find a piece in the WaPo and circle all the judgment words. It wasn’t even a challenge.

Which is fair – it’s HARD to write something good and accurate on deadline and not let some bias creep on. I think it’s inevitable. But if the WaPo wants to make a commitment to balance they have other ways they can do it without lowering the quality of their reporting. Refusing to take a stand on a concrete fact isn’t better news, it’s worse.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Dan Savage to WaPo: [unprintable] » We Love DC -- Topsy.com