Why do you feel it necessary to refer to Andrew Sullivan as “GayPunditAndrewSullivan”? Obviously you think his sexual orientation is significant for some reason but for the life of me I can’t figure out what that reason might be. Can you please enlighten me?
KSO: Why do you feel it necessary to refer to Andrew Sullivan as “GayPunditAndrewSullivan”? Obviously you think his sexual orientation is significant for some reason but for the life of me I can’t figure out what that reason might be.
Can’t speak for DDG, but Sullivan made his name largely as a commentator on gay issues, and he is frequently described in media references precisely as “gay pundit Andrew Sullivan”. He and others have so identified him with that label that it almost is part of his name (though “ConservativeGayPunditAndrewSullivan” might be more descriptive). I don’t think that DDG is trying to imply that there’s anything wrong with his being gay or that it affects the validity of his criticisms of the Times.
Mrs. Dusty Avery of Augusta, Georgia was among several Augusta residents featured in a Nov. 17 Times article about the Augusta National Golf Club and its membership policies. The article also included a photograph of Avery. She said the Times had misrepresented her comments. She wrote a letter to the Editor of the Times, but they have not printed it. Fortunately her letter is available on the internet. Excerpt:
The Times article is here. It sure doesn’t represent Mrs. Avery as holding the views she expresses in her unpublished letter.
Sorry, KSO, that’s an inside joke between me and December. I guess you missed the “Are homophobic ads OK if they’re run by Democrats?” train wreck, in which GayPunditAndrewSullivan figured largely.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=138945&pagenumber=2
Umm, quoting out of context and misrepresenting what others say by taking tiny snippets and spinning them to make them into something other than what the original meant. This is what you’re so upset at december? Physician, heal thyself!
Enjoy,
Steven
Who, me? 
I do recall the allegations, but hadn’t been thinking of it at all in this case. (I can’t say it’s really in the front of my mind when I read through his stuff.) I just pulled those two as examples of his odd personal vendettas/fixations, which he gives 72-point headlines to over weightier matters.
In 1972, a newspaper that had only recently come to any national prominence put two young, inexperienced, unproven reporters on the story of a breaking and entering.
Eventually their coverage revealed this breaking and entering was part of a much, much larger campaign by a powerful man who used his power to attack his enemies. The two reporters kept digging at the story. No other newspapers picked it up. Their newspaper was accused of having a liberal bias. They were accused of making up their own story.
In 1974, the man they were hounding — Richard Nixon — resigned. The reporters were Woodward and Bernstein. The newspaper was The Washington Post. The story was Watergate.
I am not saying the Augusta National controversy is equal in stature to Watergate, but I am saying that just because one newspaper is pursuing a story and others are not, that doesn’t mean the paper has some sort of bias. I am still undecided on what I think of this, but I don’t think anyone should be so quick to judge The Times’ behavior here.
Augusta National is a private business, but it’s also one of the few remaining in its line of business that does not admit women. It’s also home of the world’s most popular golf tournament. There is a “uniqueness” factor here that makes it at least somewhat newsworthy. It is roughly comparable to the Boy Scouts not admitting gays and athiests: A nationally-known organization (practically a national institution) that is running against the slow but steady national trend of granting those groups equal access. You could say the Augusta National story is even more worth talking about, since discrimination against women (as opposed to gays or athiests) has been an issue for much longer than most others.
As for in-fighting between the editorial and opinion, I am inclined to agree with The Times. Public in-fighting lowers employee morale and makes the paper look disorganized. There are an infinite number of other sources where those disagreeing with the Times’ coverage can voice their opinions. There’s little harm to the marketplace of ideas if that is not published in The Times itself.
Squink, please tell me you were being sarcastic when putting the words “dignity” and “The Washington Times” in such close proximity. Though I will agree the Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper, and is what conservatives should read if they want excellent journalism with an opinion page that’s on the right (usually — like The New York Times, the WSJ is willing to break from its expected stance in some cases. For example, the NYT has attacked Democrats for holding up judicial nominees. I believe, but I’m not sure, the WSJ has attacked Bush for not being tough enough on corporate fraud).
Agreed. This is why it’s so damn annoying to continually be baited to “excuse” or “explain” or somehow justify the coverage, or lack of coverage, different events recieve at the hands of the press. I really, really, really wish you’d stop this kind of thing december. It’s pointless at best, trolling at worst.
Enjoy,
Steven
Here are the two articles.