data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c0dde/c0dde982ba3c743e4cae84a1478a67d150eeed48" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e273/3e2735cc9bf941dd619699e0db25815e78387049" alt=""
Check out this post from July 10 in The Gist, Michelangelo Signorile's blog.
Especially interesting are the comments...
In an editorial today regarding the crackpot antigay theories of George W. Bush's surgeon general nominnee, James Holsinger, the New York Times several times uses the term "homosexuals." Last week my friend John Aravosis of Americablog wrote an open letter to the Washington Post regarding the use of that word.
While the usage of the term, in a limited (often clinical or scientific) manner could be argued, there is ABSOLUTELY NO justification for the Times using the term "practicing homosexuals" in today's editorial, as the final, emphatic note of the piece, no less.
Read the rest here.
No comments:
Post a Comment