The Washington Post's internalized homophobia

I've been thinking some more about the Washington Post's story today about anti-gay GOP Maryland Governor Ehrlich, and his openly-gay chief of staff Steve Kreseksi stepping down, and now I'm getting a little ticked.

The Post story totally ignored the pink elephant in the room, namely that numerous Web sites, incuding mine, have publicly excoriated Ehrlich and Kreseski for their political relationship at a time that the governor decides to he needs to prove his anti-gay bona fides. Somehow, totally unconnected (but of course), Kreseski decides to suddenly quit and we're to believe that this had nothing, NOTHING, to do with the public criticism of both of them, and the clear desire of Ehrlich of late to suck up to the religious right.

Now, the Post editors might argue that they had no proof that Kreseski resigned because of the gay controversy. True enough. But that's not their job, to PROVE their stories (otherwise, they'd never report anything the Bush administration ever says lest the Bushies not PROVE it first). Their job is to report the news. And in this case, the news is clearly that Ehrlich's openly-gay - and let me remind the Post again, OPENLY GAY - chief of staff resigned immediately following public criticism of him and his boss over gay issues, at a time that his boss is sucking up to the religious right - over? - GAY ISSUES.

The correct article to write is one in which you note that Kreseki is leaving, you note that it following public criticism of him and the governor because Kreseski is openly gay and the governor has now decided to go anti-gay, and you then let Kreseki and the governor answer on-the-record for the article whether the two are related.

What you don't do is what the Post did. Namely, you don't pretend that Kreseski being openly gay is akin to him being accused of having syphillis or murdering small children. And you don't treat gay issues like they're state secrets, especially when one party to the story is a governor who just went anti-gay, and when the other guy in the story is openly-gay and has been openly-gay for over 15 years that I've known him. That's just absurd. They made gay the issue, not us. They can't hide now behind a "gay" smokescreen, just because the issue no longer suits their political needs.

In an effort to be "pro-gay," the Post in effect made a decision that was quite anti-gay. They're refusing to report the real story here, under a likely smokescreen of "well, we can't PROVE the connection," when the point of journalism isn't to prove the connection, it's to report the relevant facts, mam, and let the public decide for themselves. Clearly the gay controversy was relevant to this story. The Post did itself and its readers a disservice by creating a closet where none was needed or deserved.