The right-wing is in overdrive attacking Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias, since they say he is ‘openly gay.’ Of course, Walker isn’t openly gay by any stretch of the imagination. But Michaelangelo Signorile perpetuates a dangerous stereotype, difficult to shed for men of my generation and Vaughn Walker’s, by calling these lies ‘smears’ in his otherwise excellent HuffPost article today entitled Judge Vaughn Walker Gets Smeared By the Media. It’s not a smear to call someone openly gay, since there’s nothing wrong with being gay in the first place.
Signorile:
The way that the sexual orientation of Judge Vaughn Walker — the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 last week — has been targeted and exploited by proponents of Prop 8 is not only an example of the ugly smear tactics of the theocratic thugs who call themselves Christians; it’s a testament to how easily the media is manipulated by the right into doing things about which editors and reporters claim to be staunchly opposed.
I’m talking about that fact that every far-right organization, from the National Organization for Marriage to the evangelical American Family Association, has attacked Walker’s decision as biased because he is supposedly "openly gay."
How did the media choose to report on Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation after the Perry decision was announced?
But more grotesque is the lie Perkins is spinning out, because Judge Walker is in fact not "openly" gay. Perkins surely knows that, as an obsessed proponent of Prop 8 following the trial day in and day out. Judge Walker has not ever confirmed to anyone in the media what sexual orientation he may be. And yet most major media organizations, from the New York Times and ABC News to the Washington Post and National Public Radio, have reported on him as gay or had commentators saying it.
Signorile contrasts the difference treatment from the mainstream media of the Kirby Dick/Mike Rogers documentary film Outrage and points out that most outlets elected not to name the names the film did in their reviews.
Then Signorile goes too far, I believe, in labeling the discussion of whether Vaughn Walker is openly gay a ‘smear’ conducted by ‘smear artists.’ It may very well be a lie to broadcast that Vaughn Walker is openly gay, since he’s never discussed his sexual orientation publicly.
Well, there was NPR last week, in an "All Things Considered" report, jumping on the bandwagon, like the Washington Post and others, reporting on Judge Walker as "openly gay" in the context of the criticisms against his ruling. The only difference was that this time the claims were coming from right-wing smear artists, whom the mainstream media are only too eager to accommodate.
It is no smear in the 21st century to call someone openly gay, because there’s nothing wrong with being gay. Our commentators play into the subtle characterization of ‘wrongness’ when we call an error a smear. It’s wrong, bad journalism, and untrue to call Vaughn Walker openly gay.
But it is certainly no smear.



40 Comments




It is fascinating, though, how Tony Perkins’ saying something on television makes it automatically true for our Legacy Media. Because, you know, church-y men never lie. Or something.
“Gay” as a smear is subjective.
However, the intention of the label “openly gay” as it is being applied to Walker is clearly meant to personally smear and to delegitimize the decision by attacking Walker ad hominem.
Bill McCollum can’t get himself enough of the Reker lies. You can tell he didn’t learn anything from the Prop 8 trial.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/09/mccollum-adoption/
Link to McCollum’s Craziness
…and obviously there is nothing wrong with being gay. Unless you are crazee Christian Taliban.
We are such a childish nation. All I can say is why do the wingers care what someone else does? Your business is not my business. It just drives me crazy.
The rightwing’s hypocrisy and double standards on steriods per usual.
These are self-same wingers who spout about the evils of “big gov’t” and libertarian this, that and the other thing, and get the gov’t out of our lives… except when it comes to what we do in our bedroom. Then these ersatz libertarians (I’m looking at you AynRand Paul) are all about have the gov’t legislate everything, and I do mean everything, that we do.
And so the bigoted media will use any trick to smear Judge Walker because that’s how they roll. NPR these days is nothing more than Fox Lite (and it’s not even that “Lite” anymore; it’s growing ever more viscious in perpetuating lies, imo).
Bravo Teddy!
(standinng on chair clapping)
That’s my opinion too. NPR has been and still is predominantly a Republican Spin Service for the past ten years. I’m guessing that the Republican bosses are still in place.
The Republican reporters are still there: Steve Inskeep, Mara Liarson, Eric Seagal, Simon, and all the rest.
Outing someone is smearing them, though. That’s important.
From ScienceBlogs:
Why Judge Walker’s Sexual Orientation is Irrelevant
Posted on: August 9, 2010 11:07 AM, by Ed Brayton
Why, thank you.
The smear is not that he is “openly Gay”. The smear is that being “openly Gay” means your opinion is invalid and untrustworthy. That’s like saying “you only think X because you’re a woman”. That’s definitely a smear.
But you’re right critics of these tactics need to be much more careful with their language lest they say things that make them look as stupid and backwards as the people they are trying to critique.
No, outing someone is NOT smearing them, because calling someone gay is not a smear.
It’s only in the headspace where being gay = bad that calling anyone gay is a smear.
If there’s something wrong with being called gay, whether you’re gay or not, then you’ve bought into the gay=bad paradigm. Which I suggest in my post we must not do.
The appropriate response to “He’s gay” isn’t “No he’s not” but instead “So?”
The Ghost of Dred Scott, keeps making his presence felt!
Outing isn’t smearing, it’s reporting, at least in the 21st century. There’s no reason to report on someone’s private life, unless that person is actively working against the interests of the community s/he is secretly also a member of, and actively engaged in. But describing someone as ‘openly gay’ like the frighty-righties are doing, along with the active collaboration of their Legacy Media fellators, is wrong in this case.
The judge is not openly gay by any stretch of the imagination. There’s no way to describe someone as ‘openly gay’ without direct personal testimony by the individual in question. It’s journalistic malpractice; I applaud Signorile for pointing it out.
It’s the term ‘smear’ I specifically object to, because it appears in his headline and in his piece several times. We need to get away from, and no longer support, the contention that calling someone gay (open or not) is a smear in any way. It’s an inaccuracy in this case, and the media should stop.
But it’s no smear.
I think the point is being missed here. I think the point of making a media circus out of Walker’s sexual orientation is to give SCOTUS a reed to overturn his opinion, on the basis of bias of judge.
OMG, once you allow the very concept of marriage, you open the door to marriage between any 5 dolphins and Peggy Noonan!!! Or even Tony Perkins and A WOMAN!!!!!!!!!
If I may respectfully both agree and disagree?
I agree that there is no shame – no “smear” in being gay. There are those on the Wingnut side, however, who may disagree with me on that. To them: “Phhhlllhhhbbbhhhtttt”
On the other hand – if the implication is that IF the judge is gay, THEN he is incapable of making a fair decision on this issue given the testimony in the case – then I DO believe it is a smear. It is much the same as saying that a female judge could not possibly give a fair hearing in a rape case, or a black judge could not give a fair hearing in a hate-crime case.
And THAT is a smear. Insinuating that the judge would rule against overwhelming evidence to the contrary simply based on his/her sex, race, orientation, is a vile and unwarranted smear.
I imagine they might get the five Catholic justices to agree on that, actually — although the irony of them ruling on something that their spiritual leader has expressly forbidden escapes them entirely.
Okay, if it is a smear, then it is a smear based upon a lie — the journalistic malpractice that Vaughn Walker is openly gay. Since he is not, isn’t it the lie that is the error that should be corrected? Leaving the smear to stand — and fall — alone.
He never said it was a smear. In the first paragraph you quote he says “ugly smear tactics of the theocratic thugs”. That is entirely true and an appropriate description, because for them it is a an attempt to smear Walker’s name. Furthermore, you end by misrepresenting again what Signorile is saying. He calls the media “smear artists”, which, again is factual. Never once does he indicate that from his point of view, being called gay is a smear. Just that it is used that way, and the corporate media is complicit in this type of faux journalism. I really don’t understand the point of you playing semantics when his argument is one that desperately needs to get out there, and not bogged down by someone who decides to be the word police.
Teddy, thanks for all your nice comments on my piece. Regarding the “smear” issue I do think you misunderstand my point or perhaps I didn’t make it clear. I’d am the last one to call homosexuality and saying someone is gay is a “smear” and you can see that over and over again in my book Queer in America and in numerous articles. As I say in the article, I actually could see an argument for discussing the judge’s sexual orienation, if one had the facts.
What is the “smear,” however, is claiming he’s gay and that it biased his position, claiming that he is simply ruling on his own behalf. That is a smear of this man’s entire career and his devotion to the law, and to the very detailed and careful decision he handed down.
Thanks again for posting the article and discussion it.
Mike Signorile
Hey, Mike, thanks for coming by.
Your work stands for itself, and I really think the HuffPost headline leads to the problem.
Any chance of changing that, do you suppose?
Ya know, the tighty-righties tried to “smear” Kagan by saying that she was a devotee of Thurgood Marshall. That argument fell flat because most rational people believe that he was a pretty good justice.
There are probably enough Christian Taliban running around to give “openly gay” some traction to delegitimize Walker’s decision.
Ditto.
The hypocrisy and moral obtuseness of the media, who echoes the sick fantasies of the right-wing, is maddening. Ironically, I don’t think rightwingers even care about what they say, as long as they think it’s mud and might stick.
It’s definitely used as a tactic though.
Years ago I was up for a promotion. I walked into our break-room at work, and the hiring manager was being told by a reich-winger co-worker “But you realize he’s a practicing homosexual.” I was enraged, as it could only be about me.
I cleared my throat with a big “ahem” and said
“Actually I quit practicing a long time ago.
…
I’ve got it down PERFECT.”
LOL
Good one. And the reich winger probably turned fifteen shades of red, swallowed hard and slinked off.
LOL!
I do not judge and no one should judge anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation.
I read Judge Walker’s opinion and evaluated it from the perspective of a trial lawyer and law professor. His legal scholarship and writing is impeccable.
The right wing idiots heads are exploding and they’re doing the only thing they know how to do. Whine. Scream. Lie. Shit their pants.
They are stupid.
They are prejudiced.
They are homophobic.
They hate themselves.
They hate everyone else.
They have the emotional maturity of a two-year-old.
IGNORE THEM.
I would love to hire a PI and out people like David Drier, Graham, etc. I would have zero ethical problems with that.
I would also have no ethical problems in “outing” pro-lifers who have received an abortion, but my guess is nobody agrees with me. That would be fighting dirty and unfairly and we can’t have that.
Mike’s point is well-taken Teddy. The “mainsteam” media has been in an almighty rush to report that Judge Walker is gay.
It refuses to report that Charlie Crist is gay.
It refuses to report that Mitch MConnell is gay.
It refuses to report that Barry Diller is gay.
It refuses to report that Dana Owens (aka. “Queen Latifah”) is gay.
It refuses to report that Kevin Spacey is gay.
It refuses to report that Anderson Cooper is gay.
So why is Judge Walker all of a sudden “openly gay” ?
Because the when the right says “Jump!” the “Mainstream” media says “How High?”
taking down Judge Walker’s integrity is what this all about. after all if Walker is gay, then he is “biased.”
watch the right do whatever to get the Supreme Court to deep six this decision. Feed the base and deny equal rights at the same time. a Win Win for the Rightwing theocrats. this tactic has been used for so many years, and quite successfully over and over. these are very smart conniving vermin.
“whatever it takes” is the name of their hatred. with all the fear promoted by the right, how could they lose?
they haven’t lost yet, with all those “activist judges” on the Supreme Court and below.
the Right will overturn this eventually somewhere along the appeal. no doubt about that. just a matter of which “activist judge” will take the “credit” for saving America from the “gay agenda.”
Then the people of California will have to vote in a new prop for gay marriage. Eight was worded to confuse people.
Outstanding comment, Kelly.
They should have promoted you to CEO after that!
The fact that there is little or no actual journalism or fact-checking by the mainstream media certainly comes as no surprise. Perhaps I overstate the obvious in saying the most offensive aspect of these post verdict criticisms is the presumption that being gay, openly or not, makes it impossible for Judge Walker to render a fair verdict.
That the media apparently allows that presumption to go unchallenged further demonstrates how steep is the climb ahead.
Perhaps Paula Poundstone could be the judge since she claims to be totally asexual. But wait….she is a……woman. Prolly biased in some crazy womany kind of way.
No, equality in the right to marry is here to stay. The fight’s not over, but the other side has met their Gettysburg.
Yes, the real question is why does “being gay” “compromise” that judge’s professionalism? If that’s the case, then half the judges in my town, so I’ve heard, would be “compromised.” Being gay certainly hasn’t compromised any of the republicans who are closet gay in terms of being faithful to the wingnut
conservative agenda.Why am I surprised the wingnuts are showing open bigotry? I mean what they seem to be saying is “gay” can’t make unbiased decisions. But wingnuts are okay with judges who preserve for instance, corporate hegemony and the like, because those judges were supported by friends of those friends.
Are any of these critics of the judge actually reading this judge’s decision and finding fault with it? or did they just decide that would be a moot point because the judge is “gay” there fore it’s self evident truthiness that the judge’s opinions aren’t worth anything. because of the gay thing.
I mean, really! When are republicans going to grow up and stop manufacturing controversy? Real governing seems to be out of the question, so they just go all Sarah Palin in the media. Stunt after stunt, stirring up racism (Shirley Sherrod case. Thanks Rupert Murdoch. And shame on you, Obama.), Islamophobia (“9-11″ mosque, thanks again Sarah Palin and Rupert Murdoch), homophobia, xenophobia (Arizona. wring hands over those immigrants v. “real Americans,” whose grandparents were never immigrants!), phobias over things in favor of public good (every other issue) etc. , etc., etc.. It’s really strange how these controversies just go away when the republicans and friends and the media shut up. Probably because there never was a controversy to begin with.