Perhaps news is sometimes too important to be left to the free-market.
Good on them. I can’t see staff on many gay newspapers here in the UK being as brave. We all know that the weekly hand-out mags like Boyz and QX are totally in thrall to their advertisers, publishing copy grabbed wholesale from press releases.
Gay censorship has been around for years. Quite often our comments and views are repressed or suppressed in the name of free speech. We need a gay wilikeaks.
Well, at least I know which gay club NOT to visit. Thanks for the tip!
“Gay censorship has been around for years. Quite often our comments and views are repressed or suppressed in the name of free speech. We need a gay wilikeaks.”
You’ve totally got the wrong end of the stick. This isn’t about censoring a gay magazine for gay views, it’s about a key advertiser – A GAY CLUB – appearing in the newspaper not wanting the image of its club tainted through the reporting of thefts taking place there. It’s just ‘censorship’ full stop. Nothing to do with gay views. Can you not see that?
It’s not even a ‘gay story’, it’s about a business wielding power over the press, which happens all the time. Again Pink News chooses to make it look like a gay issue by its wording of articles. Sloppy journalism.
Again Pink News chooses to make it look like a gay issue by its wording of articles.
But if everyone involved is gay, why can’t it be reported as a ‘gay issue’?
” if everyone involved is gay, why can’t it be reported as a ‘gay issue’ – well, if a car full of gays going to a picnic swerves off the road and hits a tree, it isn’t a gay issue story though it is a story about gays, but scarcely of national moment.
It’s like the difference between something being of national interest and something being interesting to the nation. Media should certainly cover the former and consider hard whether prurient or similar interest justifies covering the latter.
On the main subject, the resignations should be applauded – gay press should not bow to advertiser pressures on editorial content and should increasingly differentiate between sponsored copy and independently-written copy.
Money talks, and it also gags. And a salutary reminder that lesbian and gay businesses can be as venal as others is no bad thing.
“But if everyone involved is gay, why can’t it be reported as a ‘gay issue’?”
That’s just daft because the focus of this story concerns the intimidation of the press IN GENERAL, not about intimidation of the gay press specifically. It is therefore not a gay story. Substitute gay for black. If it had been a black cultural newspaper with a clack advertiser, it would not have been a black/race story. It would still have been an ‘intimdation of the press by a big business’ story.
Only a bad journalist would attempt to skew the real context to such an extent – I mean, just take the headline. It is intimating homophobia as a means to incite outrage. Once you read the article, you realise that the headline is incongruous to the actual story and misleading.
But that’s Pink News all over, it’s no better than The Sun or The Daily Mail for doctoring the truth or misleading readers through dodgy headlines. Time for some new journos maybe.