Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  pay stubs

Jo-Vanni Roman: I Did Not Have Sex With George Alan Rekers

[flv:http://ht.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/us/2010/05/07/ac.kaye.george.rekers.cnn_640x360_dl.flv http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2010/05/romancnn390.jpg 650 400]

George Alan Rekers’ fate should be completely sealed, thanks to last night’s AC360 report, where his rentboy Jo-Vanni Roman revealed their whole sordid affair.

Most notable: There was a written contract between Rekers and Roman, which called for Roman earning $75 per day in exchange for spending eight hours a day with Rekers, carrying his luggage, and providing one massage per day. (That’s $9.38/hour, for those keeping track.) And yet Roman still says he wants to be Roman’s friend! To which we say: Cheap people are never your friend.

As for some murmuring that Roman is insisting to the press they didn’t have sex because he fears criminal prosecution for hooking? We call bullocks. Both Roman and Rekers’ second alleged rentboy Carl Shepherd says Rekers wasn’t interested in going beyond rub-downs. In the first few second of this interview with Randi Kaye, Roman says there was no sex.

Leave it to Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen to score the money quote: “It seems Rekers doesn’t think gay people should raise boys, he thinks they should rent boys.” Zing!

And while she didn’t secure Roman, Rachel Maddow had this powerful take on the saga:

By:           editor editor
On:           May 8, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

  • 85 Comments
    • Jon
      Jon

      AC being gay you should of put a better spin on the story. Overall it just says what we already know people who REALLY hate queers are gay or bi. Come on it’s been shown over and over again to be true.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WalkderDC
      WalkderDC

      The defenders of Anderson Cooper always say that the reason he doesn’t come out is that he supposedly doesn’t want to be the story. However, what you saw in this report is the fear of the closet case. His being closeted influenced the story. He really did not go into the hidden hypocrisy of George Rekers, he didn’t mention much about him being closeted. I think in this instance it would have been better to have even had a straight reporter do the report. Coopers own issues interfered with him going into the story as much as was necessary and that is truly too bad. The regular reports on CNN and other areas were much more direct on pointing out his hypocrisy.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @Jon: I agree. That story on AC was pretty lame, did not add much that was new, and the very short interview with the escort was not relevant at all for how little was revealed. Maybe AC feared going down to Florida to do the interview himself, and expose himself as another closet case? Just saying.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheProfessor
      TheProfessor

      Rekers should pay severely for his double-standard and hypocrisy. He is a dangerous man to the gay community, while sadly being gay himself. Hell would be a good place for him to rot in.
      That said, I have to say I am feeling a bit on a queasy as to how this story got out.
      1) how did it happen that the theater critic of the Miami New Times, who writes only about theater as it appears in all his stories on file, was at the airport, with a camera, to take the pic and report on this situation?
      2) not many people would know or recognize Rekers before the whole scandal came out. How then did the reporters know? Did the escort alert them?
      3) if the escort alerted them, then that goes against his statement that he did not know who Rekers was and what he did. Is he lying then?
      4) how could the escort not have any clue as to what this man did? In this day and age where kids his age are so tech-savvy, someone takes you on a trip, all-expenses paid for 10 days, you at least want to check out who the “generous” person is. And since Rekers looks like such a pompous windbag, I’m sure he blabbered something to impress this young man.
      5) the reporters went to the escort’s house and spent several hours with him, during which Rekers allegedly placed a call to the escort. The escort then put him on speaker. The reporters said that after a while it was so sad that one of them left the room and the other one retreated to a corner for a smoke. Umm, that’s not exactly journalistic procedure. Nobody here had died, this was not a funeral, etc. You stay with your sources, you record everything and try to be as objective as possible. And if you did feel so bad about the situation, you certainly do not spell it out in your text, which is what they did. That only robbed the reporting of professionalism and objectivity.
      6) I sure hope this was not a set-up of some kind, or it would make us look even worse, and would represent another blow to journalistic integrity. Is the escort friends with the writers, or did he know them? Did they know Rekers? The escort said at first he was not going to talk to more press, and then he appeared on AC 360. Why? In the end, he did not add anything relevant. And as a matter of fact, denied even having had sex with that old gasbag Rekers and seemed to corroborate the loser’s account.
      I don’t know, something here leaves me with a bad taste. Glad though that Rekers is now known worldwide as a fraud, and a liar. Now an investigation should pursue this matter of him having adopted a child who is in his teens.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      To equate AC’s closet with George Rekers’ is really beyond the pale. Let’s see… is out to his family, all his friends, his co-workers. He’s out enough that, even if maybe not EVERYone in Peoria knows he’s gay, at least anyone with a smidgen of media interest, anyone who has ever scanned the National Enquirer in a check-out line or has access to Google or Wikipedia, knows it.

      Do I wish AC would come out in the mode of, to use the most recent example, Ricky Martin? Full-court press conference, exclusive to People magazine, the works. Of course. But I guess his raison d’etre for not doing so is that he travels to scary places where such knowledge might deny him access and he wants to be an objective journalist (the former reason holds much more actual water than the latter, but I digress…)

      George Rekers is closeted in every sense of the word, starting with to himself. He is a vile, thoroughly creepy man (if you can call a weasel like him a man) whose entire career has been about demonizing gay people and destroying their lives, while he himself cruises Rentboy.com.

      Enough said. I don’t lump these two in the same category, not in any way.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @WalkderDC: You are right Walker. But then you know what would have happened with a straight reporter? People like that person Anne who always come on here to defend Anderson Cooper would have said the straight reporter was being too hard on the gays, whereas Cooper would’ve shown a more humanitarian side. In this case, the dread of the closet face was evident on Cooper’s face from the very beginning. That man looked like he was constipated just mentioned the words preacher and escort. A closet case reporting on an exposed closet case. Fascinating and depressing.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @WalkderDC: Did you watch it? A straight reporter (I’m assuming she was straight, she certainly looked the part) DID do the story! It was on his show, but AC did not “do the report” other than introduce it.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @Mark: The argument that Cooper hides his homosexuality to go to dangerous places is so lame, tired and cliched. Then women would not go report to the MIddle East or the Congo, Jews would not report either from the MIddle East, etc.
      Cooper did not press hard enough on Rekers, and approached the whole thing in a very detached way. Here is a clear case of how his own private life affected his line of work. His book is out on paperpack today, by the way, and in it he discusses the great tragedies of his life, but no mention of his private life. So which one is it? We can talk about suicide, wealthy and dysfunctional family, but not what moves your heart? No sir, sorry. I don’t expect a cover on “People” magazine, but a bit more honesty would be refreshing and the right thing to do.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @Mark: Precisely. Cooper abdicated the starring role on this subject, something very odd for a gay man who should be affected by this and yet did not pursue it as he does other subjects. So yes, his own agenda interfered. And the reporter’s work, by the way, was atrocious and did not reveal anything new.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WalkderDC
      WalkderDC

      @No. 5 · Mark

      “”To equate AC’s closet with George Rekers’ is really beyond the pale.”"

      This is the problem with Coopers fans, they don’t even bother to read. I never once equated Coopers Closeted status with Rekers. What I said was that Coopers fear and closeted status influenced his reporting on the issue. I have seen him come out much harder against most other types of stories, and yet in this one he tiptoed soft as a lamb around it. The straight reporters all trumpeted the Hypocrisy of Rekers, Cooper did not. In this instance, his closeted status influenced how he relayed the story in a detrimental way.

      May 8, 2010 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      It was such a weak piece of work I don’t know why he signed onto it.

      For the “Mainstream” media pictures are everything. Therefore the “Get” of having “Lucien” on camera took precedent over the fact that they acted as if they didn’t knwo what to do or say once they got him there.

      By contrast Rachel Maddow explianed the entire story and got right to the heart of why Rekers is so important. He’s not just another closet case. He;s a closet case with great power and authority who has been doing enormous hard to the entire LGBT community.

      May 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Mark: 100% Co-Sign……
      Anderson Cooper is as out as he can be without jeapordizing his career. Persons in the know say the folowing: He is on the short list to replace Larry King once the fossilization process is complete. He has contemplated and actually wants to come out. He has been advised that if he comes out prior King’s departure he will not get the gig. It sucks but if more celebs didn’t play the games they do, it would be easier for him and others to come out.

      He lives with and travels openly with his partner. He has no problem being photographed with him. Unlike the 99% of other Gay celebrities he never had a “girlfirend” or “fiance” or is constantly phtotographed with a beard while having no facial hair.

      As to Jo-vanni the globe trotting masueer, based on the interview I think he is attempting to do the right thing. You can tell his brain ciruits are frying with all the drama this has brought to him. I think he had an idea of who Reekers was but thought more of the cash and trip. Once the poo hit the fan and what a vile, disgusting scumbag Reekers actually is was exposed as a Gay person Jo-vanni realized the damage this mutant has done to the community. I am sure Reekers attornies have been bombarding him with threats. The contract was not a public document, he could have kept his mouth shut and said nothing of a sexual nature occured between them.

      …And once again while we all watch Reekers twist in the wind and wallow in the shit bed he created this story can have a very happy ending for the Gays. The Family Research Council, NARSH and all the other terrorist anti-gay orgs are under fire, being exposed as nothing more than cults of hate. The Florida Attorney General who paid this vile scumbag of between $60,000.00 and $120,000.00 and running for Gov is under a barrage of fire. The judge in the case dismissed Reekers testimony on the stand as the rants of a biased lunatic. The AG immediatley appealed the verdict, refusing to back down. He is now digging his sorry ass into a deeper hole by stating that an “exhaustive investigation” was done on Reekers prior to hiring him to testify. This case is going to make very ascared in the future to bring in these “expert witnesses” who are no different than the “experts” who testified at the Salem witch trials.

      May 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eminent Victorian
      Eminent Victorian

      So, Anderson Cooper “doesn’t want to be the story” but will put out a book about himself that also conveniently leaves out his sexuality?

      May 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: Can you prove that Cooper has been told that he will not get King’s gig? Do you have a document to back up such a claim? If not, it’s just hearsay. Let’s deal with facts.

      May 8, 2010 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @Eminent Victorian: Yeah, and the book is out on paperback today, as he so casually mentions in his website. You can find all about him… except what is in his heart.

      May 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @David Ehrenstein: Maddow did a stellar job.

      May 8, 2010 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Marriage Now
      Gay Marriage Now

      Maddow proves you can be openly gay and be a top-notch journalist/commentator! AND she has better tv ratings! What are you afraid of Anderson???

      May 8, 2010 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Obiwan
      Obiwan

      Mr. Rekers is through his actions showing everyone that cure the gay works. Now comes another question of whether Mr. Rekers had sex with the gay escort? In a strict interpretation he didn’t, but the behavior was definitely sexually arousing and sexually motivated. Depending on interpretation, some might consider it sex.

      The fallen nature theory of the Family Research Council gets a little old. Could the fallen nature be an excuse for justifying the persecution of what is a natural inclination? It is used as a justification to continually rail against what can’t be changed – to the detriment of those who have tried to change. It is also used as an excuse for hypocrisy. Individuals from conservative backgrounds – who feel a need to adhere to their tradition — experience a great emptiness and feel like damaged goods when all the NARTH therapy and everything else fails in curing them of – what they are told and believe– is an abominable sin. Some leave the Evangelical or Mormon or other conservative fold after years of misery, or continue to profess Faith with a belief system that throws out the homophobia, or commit suicide, or live out their lives in misery. And they have human beings such as George Alan Rekers , or James Dobson, or Lou Engel, or the Mormon leadership, to thank for all of this.

      May 8, 2010 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Jones: Mr.Jones. The facts are that he is not ascared of being photographed with his Partner. They openly live together, take vacations, are seen dining together and have zero issues being photographed together. I would like for him to utter the words “I am Gay” yet he supports the community and does no damage. Why hate on him? There are dozens of others who do actual damage to our community. Rachel was totally out prior to getting her gig on the TVs for years. She is awesome and uses something that really scares the bejezus out of the right wing lunatics: Facts. I am sure Cooper will come out in time, it does no good to the cause to toss hate where it is not deserved.

      It is a shame that in a thread where our venom should be aimed at that vile scumbag Reekers who has done serious damage to our community for decades, persons want to target Cooper. I just don’t get it……………..

      May 8, 2010 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Of course no one is admitting to having sex. You can be busted for that. Massage is just a front for escort services. However, Rekers is obviously so cheap and prissy that it might just have been the erotic massages. In any case, the circumstances and the massages are enough to sink this old son of a bitch, so all well and good.

      With all the talk of internalized homophobia, etc., the fact remains that Rekers is a person of normal intelligence sufficient to get a degree in psychology, albeit decades ago, and yet he does what he does anyway. That makes him just a son of a bitch. Don’t waste time analyzing him, just make sure he’s thoroughly ruined. Also make sure Jovanni gets all the protection we can give him.

      May 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Core
      Core

      TheProfessor, I agree – there are several suspicious things about how this story came about. The candid photo, the phone call that made the “reporters” sad, etc. We shouldn’t be ignoring important questions or facts just because we happen to like the big story (no matter what that story is).

      If the escort didn’t like the $75 per day (+ airfare + hotels + food + free time), he could have declined the job. Duh. My guess is that he accepted the low hourly pay because of the additional travel perks. And, I would imagine that (from an escort standpoint), the other requirements of the job were “less” in comparison to what some clients request. The obvious difference relates to the scandal that the escort was likely not expecting to come his way.

      Escorts take many risks by choosing this profession. Let’s not be fooled. The obvious risks are safety (physical), diseases and prosecution for prostitution. Those are not trivial risks. But, there is also the risk of prosecution for tax evasion (if you’re not declaring every cash AND non-cash payment you receive). And, because many of your clients are living “secret lives,” you are also playing with fire. If the client is a politician or preacher, a married man or a celebrity, you WILL be part of the scandal/story if it becomes public. In this particular case, you’ll be a BIG part of the story.

      I am NOT saying these things to divert attention from anything else that has already been discussed and reported on. (Please re-read that last sentence about 10,000 times before you begin disagreeing with my post’s contents). All I’m saying is that there are always other parts to a story. Sadly, there are aspects to stories that we never hear about, that get ignored, etc. As TheProfessor shared, there are many unanswered questions about how this story broke. Although these questions and answers don’t change the final outcome of the “main story,” we shouldn’t get into the habit of ignoring some questions.

      May 8, 2010 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trav
      Trav

      Hi I was gonna say I thought the mustache alone was a screaming giveaway. lol hi George Rekers! I hope he doesn’t kill himself and open up.

      May 8, 2010 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      Whats the web traffic been like over on RentBoy? Talk about free advertising!!!

      May 8, 2010 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Qjersey:Turns out to be a very clever marketing strategy by RentBoy owner George Reekers…. :-p

      May 8, 2010 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D'oh, The Magnificent
      D'oh, The Magnificent

      That’s it- I am done with Queerty. You dare to mention the name of the prostitute. How dare you!

      Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

      May 8, 2010 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @WalkderDC: Those comments make no sense because as already pointed out Anderson Cooper DID NOT file this report. The interview and the piece were created by a straight correspondent while Anderson was on location in Nashville. We don’t know what sort of report AC himself would have created because he didn’t make one.

      All Anderson did in regard to the story was a “coming up later in the show” where he took a snide kind of tone about the bag carrier excuse and the introduction to the piece where he stressed Rekers’ anti-gay activism.

      May 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Trav: 100% Co-sign………How did he slip under the Gay radar for so damm long? There was a program on the TVs bout Gays in the 70′s. His look is Fire Island old queen circa 1976……………

      May 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeandrewsdantescove
      mikeandrewsdantescove

      I think it’s unfortunate George screwed him on the compensation. Hopefully gay outlets will hire Mr. Roman for the actual money he’s worth. It happened to the University of Hawaii’s Tim.

      JJ
      Top 10 Songs to Have Sex To –
      http://promotemusic.blogspot.com/

      May 8, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 28 · mikeandrewsdantescove wrote, “I think it’s unfortunate George screwed him on the compensation.”

      It isn’t clear that the kid was screwed on the compensation. Those 8 hours with George presumably includes breakfast, lunch, and dinner (all paid for), plus trips to museums, etc., with the admission fees paid for, and he got to visit Europe for free
      and hopefully with enough spare time to go out on his own and have some fun.

      May 8, 2010 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshP
      JoshP

      $75 a day, homeboy is cheap whore

      May 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      Queerty:

      Thank you for following this story so faithfully.

      To The Professor:

      If you’re so curious about how this story broke, why haven’t you written me directly? That surely would have been simpler, and faster, than posting half-accusatory messages all over the web.

      But to answer your question: It was a tip, received by Penn toward the end of March. No, the tipster wasn’t Mr. Roman; and no, we didn’t know Mr. Roman prior to interviewing him at his home two weeks ago.

      If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to write. I am a friendly person, and you needn’t be afraid.

      In the meantime, I invite you all to follow new developments in the Rekers drama at New Times.

      Grazie,
      - BKT

      May 8, 2010 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Brandon,

      Thanks for posting here. Can you let us know more about the later New Times blog post where you describe overhearing a phone conversation between Rekers and Lucien (on speakerphone no less, just how dumb and naive is George?). Why didn’t you tape this damaging conversation? Why was it written in such a non-journalistic style? It would have had much more coverage and play if it had been written in a more acceptably journalistic way.

      May 8, 2010 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Val
      Val

      Anyone else notice how much “Lucien” resembles a young Aryan-ish Jesus?
      After the teaching in the temple, but before the beard.

      May 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      Mark:

      I’d be happy to address that blog post, but I’d ask that you write me directly. Comments sections can be powerful distractions, and they have tempted me into missing more than one deadline in the past. I don’t want to risk that right now.

      So — thank you for reading, and I hope to talk soon.

      Regards,
      - BKT

      May 8, 2010 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 32 · Mark wrote, “Brandon, Thanks for posting here. Can you let us know more about the later New Times blog post where you describe overhearing a phone conversation between Rekers and Lucien (on speakerphone no less, just how dumb and naive is George?). Why didn’t you tape this damaging conversation?”

      The reason he didn’t tape it is that he would have had to tell Rekers in advance under to Florida laws – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States :
      “Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (i.e., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan[10], Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation.”

      May 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @Brandon K. Thorp: I want to truly thank you for your role in exposing that vile scumbag Reekers and dragging him out of his miserable closet. I have been having a cyber ball watching and posting this delicious drama unfold and posting with glee imagining how painfull it must be for him to wallow in the vile shit bed he made for himself……….He spent decades tossing hurt on the Gays and Gay Karma is hitting him with all that it has. I am certain we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of what this scumbag has been hiding. I can predict many very small skeletons falling out of his vile, hateful closet…..

      And please do all that you can to help topple the AG of Florida for his reprehensive backing and paying from what I have heard from $60,000 to $120,000 this “expert witness” who is no more than a vile snake oil salesman………Again Thanks…..

      May 8, 2010 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jones
      Jones

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: Yeah, you never will get it.

      May 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheProfessor
      TheProfessor

      @Brandon K. Thorp: Mr. Thorpe, since this is a public forum of discussion, I think I am within my rights to raise these questions, as something you, as a journalist, should know. And I have those questions, certainly other people do as well. I even saw that in the comments of your own newspaper.
      So why bother then sending you a private e-mail when this is a public matter?
      The positive outcome of the story for the gay community does not mean that there are not some glaring holes/omissions in that first piece which could have benefited from some stricter editing.
      These are not accusations, these are legitimate and ethical points being raised. While I appreciate your answer, I would suggest you grow a tougher skin, or you won’t make it in this business.
      Regards.

      May 8, 2010 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheProfessor
      TheProfessor

      @Brandon K. Thorp: Perhaps you should address that in your blog Mr. Thorpe, the doubts regarding that phone conversation.

      May 8, 2010 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheProfessor
      TheProfessor

      @Mark: I think you hit it right on the nail Mark.

      May 8, 2010 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheInsider
      TheInsider

      @B: There have been exceptions. A former Miami Herald journalist by the name of Jim DeFede tape a Miami commissioner without him knowing. The man, Arthur Teele, killed himself shortly after that conversation. Sometimes journalists practice those rules, others they don’t, and sometimes, when they get caught, not much happens to them, except for a guilty conscience.

      May 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealScoop
      TheRealScoop

      From UNZIPPED, May 7:

      May 07, 2010

      What A Mess: The Miami New Times’ Miserable, Irresponsible, And Unethical Handling Of The Rekers/Rentboy Scandal

      Three days ago, Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp wrote a story for the Miami New Times that exposed anti-gay activist and Family Research Council co-founder George Rekers’ vacation with a Rentboy, who was later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman. Since then, there have been three follow up articles for the paper; one on Wednesday (featuring a photo of Rekers and Roman at the airport), one yesterday (a mini-interview where Roman admitted to giving Rekers nude massages), and one late last night (where Penn and Thorp claimed to have eavesdropped on a conversation two nights ago between Roman and Rekers). Presumably, none of these stories would have been written had I not revealed Roman’s identity on the day the story first broke. (Remember: Before anyone had figured out who Roman was, Bullock was leaving comments on blogs, telling people, “PLEASE do not go after the escort. He does not need to be outed by the national media.” Now, Bullock and his boyfriend Thorp can’t stop writing about him.)

      And yet, here it is four Miami New Times stories and three days later, and the alternative weekly hasn’t answered two simple questions:

      1. How did Bullock and Thorp know who Roman and Rekers were?
      2. How did Bullock and Thorp know to be at the airport at the exact same time as Rekers and Roman, with a camera?

      To be sure, Bullock and Thorp don’t have to reveal who their source(s) was, but in one of their four stories over the past three days, one would think that a fundamental part of their reporting would be to at least acknowledge that they had a source. Instead, they tell whimsical tales. The articles read like diary entries. To paraphrase what one of my readers wrote in a comment earlier this week, it feels like their entire story should be written in italics.

      So why does this matter? Well, put your schadenfreude aside (and don’t get me wrong, the destruction of Rekers—with facts and proper reporting—is a potentially wonderful thing) and consider this: What if Bullock and Thorp were say, I don’t know, fucking Jo-Vanni Roman, and that’s how they got their scoop. At this point, and until they put the origins of their reporting into some kind of context, we don’t know how they got their information.

      Ultimately, this story is the Miami New Times responsibility. The paper, owned by Village Voice Media, has let a story of dramatic significance to the gay community, American politics, and the religious right play out without holding its reporters to any journalistic standards, and that is insane. Does bringing down someone as despicable as Rekers justify going to any means necessary? What if Bullock and Penn did something unethical—or worse, illegal (again, we don’t know because they haven’t told us)—in order to get that picture of Rekers and Roman in the airport? How will that reflect upon the gay community?

      All the Miami New Times has to do is publish a concise statement explaining how their writers got their story, and all of this speculation will be over. A simple, “We got a call from an anonymous source” would suffice.

      Instead, they give us this episode of Gossip Girl below. Here are excerpts from the fourth article that was published at 10:00 p.m. last night (uhh, why are they still calling him “Lucien” when he, Jo-Vanni, has called me multiple times and identified himself as Jo-Vanni?). I’ll let you determine what kind of journalism this is:

      Anti-gay activist George Alan Rekers complains…that he did not hire a young gay escort named Lucien as a prostitute. But what the minister — who hasn’t returned calls seeking comment — likely didn’t realize is that Miami New Times reporters were sitting beside Lucien during a candid conversation over speakerphone.

      During that talk — which took place at about 1 a.m. Thursday in a Fort Lauderdale home — Rekers tells Lucien several times not to talk to the press. He also never challenges Lucien’s statements that he found the 20-year-old escort on an internet site, nor that they “did the whole massage thing,” referring to Lucien’s contention that he gave Rekers nude massages during their two-week trip to Europe.

      [...]

      “Sometimes I feel like I should just tell (the press) what happened on the trip.”

      “No,” said Rekers quickly, “Please don’t do that. Please don’t let them pressure you into it.”

      “But I’m getting pressured out of the gay community!” Lucien was fairly screaming, now. “If I ever wanted to be with someone — it wouldn’t work out! This is my fucking name!”

      After some cross-talk, Rekers tried to calm Lucien down: “I’ve been through things like this in the past –”

      Lucien cut him off: “Well I haven’t! I’m 20 years old! If you’ve been through this, you shouldn’t have gone to that website, you shouldn’t have hired me — why did you make so many choices [for me] without giving [indecipherable].”

      The conversation was too sad, by then, and we couldn’t bear to follow it. The whole thing felt pornographic. One of us took a bathroom break; the other of us left the couch and stood by a window.

      Wow. I mean…wow. That’s not a botched copy and paste job on my part. That’s actually how Bullock and Thorp’s reportage concludes. Someone had to go pee. Also, it’s potentially illegal to listen in on someone’s telephone conversation, unless you have a court order or you’re a federal/state law enforcement official with probable cause. If Bullock and Thorp recorded the conversation, it’s definitely illegal. Are the Miami New Times and Village Voice Media aware of this? Do they care? Hello?

      If/when the Miami New Times responds to any of the questions I’ve raised here and asked of them in other communications, I’ll let you know.

      Finally, here’s a screen cap from Penn Bullock’s Facebook page, dated April 26th, 2010 (13 days after Roman and Rekers were spotted at the airport, according to the Miami New Times).

      May 8, 2010 at 9:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @TheRealScoop:

      You write:

      What if Bullock and Penn did something unethical—or worse, illegal (again, we don’t know because they haven’t told us)—in order to get that picture of Rekers and Roman in the airport? .How will that reflect upon the gay community?

      VERY WELL THANK YOU! It will show that those who may live reprehensive , dispicable lives like that vile scumbag Reekers that if you spend decades causing harm to the Gay community that we are going to come after you, and expose you for reprehensive lowlife piece of shit that you are. It will show those that given the chance we will ruin your lives like the thousands of Gay kids whos lives have been ruined by lemming like Parents who take the vile poo dispensed by the Family Research Council and NARML, and the books this scumbag has wrote as gospel to cast their kids out into the streets, or even worst the kids who committed suicide………

      Many of these lunatics would put every one of us in “reprative therapy units” (a euphanism for jailing all the fags) because of the vile dogma spewed by this scumbag. And he was not just preaching to the right wing lunatics who procreate while listening to Rush Windbag. He had the full and unwavering support of the Attorney General of the State of Florida. This little incident might very well prevent him from becoming the Governor. And it will surely cause other AGs to take a long hard look at having these lunatics testify in courts of law in matters relating to Gay issues. And you have a problem with the methods that may or may not have been utilized to exposed him????? In case you haven’t noticed the Anti-Gay lunatics will use any method they can devise to deny our rights, cause harm to our community, and hurt our children. You need to reevaluate your priorities here……….. Bullock and Penn
      deserve our praise and thanks.

      May 8, 2010 at 9:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • OhYeah
      OhYeah

      The reporters who wrote the story are lovers! Oh oh, this is sounding fishy…

      May 8, 2010 at 10:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      The reaction to No 35 (as 7:34 PM May 8) shows the problem with QUEERTY’s rating system. Someone had asked why a person listening in (via a speakerphone) on a phone conversation with Rekers didn’t tape it. I provided a factual explanation – taping a phone call is illegal in Florida unless all parties agree – and I gave a citation. Obviously if they had asked Rekers in advance (required under Florida law) he wouldn’t have said anything damaging since that’s the last thing he’d want on tape. So, to have a chance of hearing something damaging, they couldn’t tape it – the best they could do was to have someone else listening as well.

      Somehow that generated one positive ratings and two negative ones. With QUEERTY’s low threshold for hiding comments, QUEERTY is risking ending up with a “head in the sand” website as useful information gets buried.

      May 8, 2010 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · TheRealScoop wrote, “Also, it’s potentially illegal to listen in on someone’s telephone conversation, unless you have a court order or you’re a federal/state law enforcement official with probable cause. If Bullock and Thorp recorded the conversation, it’s definitely illegal.”

      It is illegal to wiretap. It is not illegal to pick up an extension phone or listen in via a speakerphone. It is (in some states including Florida) illegal to make a recording without everyone’s permission. It is not illegal to take notes and say what you heard.

      Other than that, the claim that Rekers did not deny using rentboy.com is not proof that he used it – the guy he was talking to was upset and you cannot simultaneously get that person to calm down while at the same time correcting each and every misstatement he might have made. Rekers didn’t have to use rentboy.com – someone may have simply given him the phone number posted on that site.

      There are a lot of ways the reporters could have found out about the trip. It could even be a gay guy working at a travel agency who knew who Rekers is and made use of all the information they insist you provide these days when booking a flight due to “security”. Or someone where he works who had a grudge. The least likely explanation is that they just happened to be there at the same time purely by accident (although that is a possibility).

      May 8, 2010 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      Unzipped sounds like they’re pissed they got scooped. They had a tantalizing half-story up before anyone else had interviewed Roman, and as far as I know it never got finished (did it? I stopped checking a few days ago) once Roman started talking to others on the record.

      I agree (as I said above) that the New Times reporting could have been handled much more professionally, and with that professionalism a more effective outcome could have occurred, rather than the stalled, he said-he said, just-under-the-radar-of most-of-the-mass-media (compare to the media blitz around Larry Craig or Ted Haggard) limbo to which this case will probably forever be consigned.

      Still, even though they botched the job a bit, the New Times reporters are NOT THE VILLIANS. The villian is that shithead Rekers, and I only criticize the reporters somewhat because if they had approached the story in a more journalistic way (i.e., following acceptable methods for full disclosure etc), the story could have gone wider, and could have been a New York Times page 1 kind of deal rather than the passing Jay Leno punchline it is.

      But in the broader scheme of things, I’m not going to support some scathing critique of them in a rival media outlet. Save your bile for the scumbag Rekers.

      May 9, 2010 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Someone posting as TheRealScoop has decided to engage in base and unfounded speculation about the integrity of Bullock and Thorp. TheProfessor claims he has the right to question the integrity of the reprorters just for the heck of it.

      Perhaps it is time to turn things around, and speculate about TheProfessor and TheRealScoop.

      Are either employees of NARTH?
      Are either employees of George Rekers?
      Have either been convicted of torturing small animals?
      Does either have a U.S. birth certificate?
      Are they really one individual using two ids?
      Are they now, or have they ever been, a member of the Communist party?
      Are they now, or have they ever been, a teabagger, in any sense of the word?
      Is the Core a sock puppet or another FRC employee?
      What is TheProfessor hiding by avoiding directly email Mr. Thorp, besides his identity?
      Are any of these three lawyers working for Rekers, or NARTH, or FRC, trying to trick people into revealing information that they could not get access to otherwise?

      We really know nothing about these three (at least) other than that they are posting attempts to discredit those who outed Reker and exposed his hypocrisy to the world.

      May 9, 2010 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 47 · Mark wrote, “I only criticize the reporters somewhat because if they had approached the story in a more journalistic way (i.e., following acceptable methods for full disclosure etc), the story could have gone wider, and could have been a New York Times page 1 kind of deal rather than the passing Jay Leno punchline it is.”

      Sorry Mark, but it is in reality just a “Jay Leno / Steven Colbert / Jon Steward” punchline, not a “New York Time Page 1″ piece no matter what. This is pure comedy and a chance to laugh at human hypocrisy. It doesn’t rate Page 1 of the New York Times because it is not a matter of national importance at a substantive level. It won’t change public policy and the only people affected by it are the alleged john and his 20-year-old rentboy. Far more important things happen on a regular basis (e.g., a number of recent developments in battery technology and fuel cells that are significant steps towards making electric cars practical for large numbers of people).

      May 9, 2010 at 12:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffree
      jeffree

      @TheRealScoop: Lots of accusations but no proof or links.

      This story emerged in the alt.press and then the blogosphere got involved: JMG has become part of the story, Queerty & Towleroad & Pam’s Blend picked up on it, among others before the MSM press did.

      Sure, there are lots of unanswered questions about who tipped whom, who said what, what was overheard & what was taken verbatim. Such is news outside the confines of mainstream journalism.

      Bottom line: Rekers hired an unqualified person as his baggage handling companion & that young guy happens to be a rentboy. Sacs were lifted, lluggage was toted, massage involving an erection & long strokes near the genitals and anus of an “EXPERT” in treating homosexuality.

      That is a huge story in terms of exposing hypocrites in NARTH/ FOF/FRC, PFLOX & the AG of the state of Fla..

      You’re distracting the narrative by unsubstannitated claims & a shrill emotional tone.

      If you have anything to prove your claims, we’ll listen/ read….. But otherwise you’re f’ing up the signal to noise ratio, and instilling further disorder into the truths that are emerging.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Oscar
      Oscar

      A rather unprofessional photo of the real-life couple that wrote the story on Rekers and the escort in the link:

      http://www.beyondelitemagazine.com/summer2009/Entertainment/Entries/2009/5/1_Writers_Brandon_K_Thorp_and_Penn_Bullock_bring_High_Fashion_to_High_Theatre_by_Dr_Drew_Albright.html

      May 9, 2010 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB

      @Oscar: The reporters are calling themselves, on Facebook, Woodward and Bernstein. Thoughts?

      May 9, 2010 at 1:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @B: I think you’re wrong about that. Do you remember the kind of coverage Foley, Craig, and Haggard got? Wall to wall.

      Yes, the first two were elected officials (US House and US Senate), but Ted Haggard got just as much coverage and who was he? A megachurch preacher few people outside of Colorado Springs had heard of before the story broke.

      The mainstream, non-FOX News media LOVES this kind of story. Rekers may not have made page 1 of the NYT, but it would have made page 2 or 3 and would have been a much bigger story if it had been handled professionally. Haggard was just as obscure as Rekers before the media went hogwire for his scandal.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      I also get the sense I’m talking to some NARTH/FRC flak here (who else would try to make the story about the reporters and not reeking Rekers?). So I’m not sure it’s worth wasting any more keystrokes. I made my point. Have fun trying to save your guy’s reputation. And good luck.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      @WalkderDC: I TOTALLY agree!! He made sure that he did not even do the interview!! That woman did it. How sad!!! The whole country knows he is gay and he won’t admit to it…is this 1950 or 2010?

      May 9, 2010 at 1:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Obiwan
      Obiwan

      @Mark: My sense is that to some the actual news seems less important than the mechanics of the story, such as who found out, what was their motive in bringing the story to the fore, and did they transcribed or recorded a telephone conversation? The news is out and for most people it is highly significant that a high profile religious right personality is a closet homosexual, and this individual, Mr. Rekers, has had a very powerful impact in fomenting homophobia and actions against gay people. This is an important story to me.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffree
      jeffree

      Looks like most anyone who said anything negative but reasonable about Rekers here & some other threads got a couple few THUMB DOWN votes. People we’ve never seen before pop in for a visit & POOF, theyre gone !!

      This story is less about the supposed relationships between the two Miami reporters — or even about Anderson Cooper’s lack of “moseying out of the closet [both interesting but not the key issue]– than it is about the lies, destruction, and hypocrasy of the anti-gay, pro-reparative therapist preachers & “scientists” who can’t even control their own gayness but who STILL advocate against same-sex marriage & gay/lesbian rights for emloyment, adoption & military service….etc.

      May 9, 2010 at 2:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rrr
      rrr

      @JamesStone: Cooper was busy and not available to do the story with the kid in Florida. He was the only national news anchor doing location reporting from Tennessee about the major flooding and the people of Tennessee have been desperate for that kind of attention.

      Cooper has interviewed plenty of gays about gay issues and scandals. There hasn’t been any sign that he’s paranoid to talk to other gays on camera.

      May 9, 2010 at 4:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      I admire Jo-Vanni for fighting Rekers, and the reporters fighting Rekers. Courage and the truth have life-giving, healing and renewing powers. Their bold, aggressive actions will save lives by slapping down bigots purveying fake science, and “science” that is really just disguised religion.

      Sparing kids from shame and suicide, helping all other gays by providing a moral example; these are the things that these warriors have done for us. They are real men, will real balls. Men with a bright future. Their strength is a blinding light, and I really do draw strength from it.

      Jo-Vanni started as an ordinary gay kid, but rose to the occasion and in so doing saved lives.

      May 9, 2010 at 7:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WalkderDC
      WalkderDC

      No. 19 · PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      It is a shame that in a thread where our venom should be aimed at that vile scumbag Reekers who has done serious damage to our community for decades, persons want to target Cooper. I just don’t get it……………..
      _______________________-

      Again, you need to read what is actually written. Targeting Cooper isn’t the issue. The issue is, I’ve seen Cooper hit most other stories much harder. In this story he did a very anemic, weak coverage job, and didn’t go into George Rekers closeted status in an in depth way. Coopers fear and his closeted status interfered with his ability to do a solid reporting job. Straight reporters actually did a much better job, while Cooper, backed off the report and tiptoed delicately. I was embarrassed for him watching and he did a disservice to the actual story.

      May 9, 2010 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @WalkderDC: I honestly don’t think there was much to hit there. The “scoop” Cooper had was gettinng the interview with Jovanni, who was like a deer in the headlights during that interview. I think he is trying to do the right thing but is jus too freaked out about how much of a drama he has found himself smack in the middle of. He was even refreing to himself as “Lucian” again when his real name is on the Googles top ten! Agreed he didn’t hit Reekers with the heavy artiliry like my breast friend Rachel did, but I am thinking he was hoping Jovanni would have been more of a “get” again I give him kudos for doing the right thing, I am certain Reekers and his attornies are going overdrive in the threat game towards him. I would urge any attorney’s in Florida who have seen the havoc the AG has wroght upon the community there reach out to Jovanni and guide him thru this.

      @jeffree: 100% Co-Sign Bullock and Penn did every Gay person in America a huge favor by exposing this vile scumbag for the selfhating bastard that he is. His reprehensive actions had negative effects and put a hurt on the Gay community for decades. And instead of every single poster givein thumbs up to post praising their efforts, you see thumbs down and attempts to discredit their efforts. Give me a freaking break!! As in my post #43 this guy had the unwavering support of the Attorney General of the State of Florida. He was paid at least $60,000 for his anti-Gay tirade in a court of law. He caused hurt to the community for decades. The rightwing lunatics would love nothing more than to deny us rights to housing, employment, adoption,health decisions and many would love to toss us in “reprative therapy units” gulags. There is a movement to have Gay teens sent to these facilities with their Parents permission for an indetermintate legnth of time. One way to eliminate the “embarrasment” of having a Gay kid is to make them disappear. The way all that comes to frutation is by having scumbags like Reekers sitting in the Attorney General’s office and discussing them!! We need to expose and drag these scumbags and their vile agenda into the light of day, by any means possible!!

      May 9, 2010 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: Having a different opinion on the journalistic procedures of how this story has played out is by no means discrediting anything and it doesn’ make the outcome less important. BUT.. there is a case for questioning those efforts’ weak holes, which 1) should not be present, 2) should be corrected, 3) could provide with ammunition for our enemies. Deal with it.

      May 9, 2010 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      @RRR Yes..perhaps I was a bit harsh on Anderson. I do like him.
      Here is my point: I just do not understand why these celebrities do not come out? I am sure they think that it will damage their career but I really do not think so. Elton John sells out every performance in minutes. My partner and I have been completely out to our family, our friends and co-workers and neighbors for years and we live in a small town in OHIO! I cannot tell you how many minds we have changed just be being honest. People appreciate honesty. We have changed hundreds of minds..can you imagine the impact if someone of Anderson’s stature came out?
      I really believe that is our best weapon against the George Rekers and the Larry Craigs of this world. There are still people out there that say they do not know any gay people!!!! I am not saying to walk up to someone and say “Hi..my name is Jim and I am gay!” Just be open and honest to the people around you. Believe me..it spreads like wildfire…

      May 9, 2010 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Obiwan
      Obiwan

      @JoeyB: How many weak holes would be devised even if journalistic techniques were air tight? And how much that has been claimed by detractors is faulty and what is the source of the detractors’ claims? No one has brought up the possible flimsiness of detractors claims other than one of the journalists in this blog.

      There are people who are watching the religious right very carefully.
      They go under names such as Religious Right Watch or Truth Wins Out. What these organizations do is a counterweight to what the right wing religious special interests do all the time. Rekers is not unknown to these religious right watch organizations because he has been a very vocal anti-gay activist.

      And as far as who tipped off whom so that the airport photograph of Rekers and his assistant was broadcast: it could have been a tip from an anonymous person, perhaps an unknown person associated with Mr. Rekers. A man can’t be so vitriolic and hypocritical – and not make enemies, even among so -called allies. Also I would submit that Mr. Rekers may not be so unknown among gay activists in Florida or Arkansas where Mr. Rekers has been an expert witness against gay adoption, nor is he unknown among ex-gay opponents. He may not be even an unknown to the Florida gay community and he may have even frequented gay bars.

      All of this is speculation. And so much is privileged information that falls under the guise of freedom of the press: a journalist will no divulge anonymous sources. My suspicion is that it will all come out in the end. I would like to see more documentation of the detractors’ claims and more information that refutes these claims. So the concern about journalistic techniques seems to be one sided. And this may possibly be the tactic used by the religious right damage control team, the possible source of this information.

      May 9, 2010 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @JoeyB: You say “deal with it”. I would rather deal with the satisfaction knowing that this vile scumbag is now a broken wreck of his former self. All the rightwing lunatics who so warmly embraced his vile hatred he spewed for decades are going into overdrive to erase any evidence that he had any relationship with them. He is wallowing in the pathetic shit bed he made for himself. He may very well topple the Attorney General of Florida and deny him the chance to become the Govenor. For too long we have had to “deal with” the rightwing scumbags using every tool at their disposal to cause hurt to the Gay community. do you think for a nano second that Maggot Gallagher, James Dobson, Peter LaBara, et all do not utilize any methods at their disposal to do damage to the Gay community? Again we are not talking the daily hatefests on the radios by Rush Windbag, Savage, Hannitty et all. This scumbag had considerable influence on powerful people who have the ability to enact legislation which can have a negative effect on every Gay persons life. He was paid between $60,000 and $120,000 by the state of Florida to deny two kids a loving home!!! Even after the Judge in the custody case ruled Reekers testimony was that of a biased lunatic with an obvious agenda, the Florida Attorney General still filed an appeal. We have been the nice homosexuals playing by the rules for too long. We need to take each and every one of these reprehensive, dispicable scumbags by any means possible……………

      May 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Obiwan: These concerns have been raised in the own MIami New Times comments section, in the Unzipped blog as someone pointed out here, and on this same blog. There was even so much speculation about whether the escort had been paid or not for his story that the New Times editor had to address that issue in a comment.
      This is like a case in court: it can be damaged by technicalities and faulty reporting. The Watergate case would have fallen to pieces had the reporters employed some of the practices here. So again, the fact that Rekers is scum has nothing to do with some doubs regarding the method employed to reveal that he is scum. Why is some clarification so difficult? Even one of the reporters replied here to two people, telling them to e-mail him in private and not answering their questions. Why?

      May 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: See my comment to Obiwan. Your passion is blinding you and you’re choosing not see what I and other people who may feel a bit uncomfortable with the procedure are stating. And lest we not forget: Rekers is scum, yes, evil, yes, a hypocrite, yes, and he is one of us. Yes, he is gay.So it is not just the right-wing lunatics responsible for all this. Because there are gays that are part of it. Or have you not heard of Log Cabin Republicans? That’s the tip of the iceber.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @JoeyB: This vile scumbag needed to be stopped. And with all his writings about Gay youth and adopting a 12year old boy, I am farily certain further investigation will cause a lot of very small skeletons to tumble out of his reprehensive wicked closet. I am satisfied because the actions of the two reporters Reekers will never again be able to inflict harm on the Gay community. Who knows the back story? There was an opportunity there and the reporters seized it with tremendous results. For that every Gay person should be very grateful for their actions.

      Again I look at Reekers and his vile counterparts as participants a war being waged on the Gay community. They have zero scruples in doing all they can to deny us rights and attempt to take other rights from us. We need to respond in kind………………

      May 9, 2010 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeyB
      JoeyB [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I agree with what you state. But I have questions. And that’s not too bad a thing, I’d say. In any case, we are not going to see the issue the same way, so good luck to you.

      May 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Obiwan
      Obiwan

      @JoeyB: I read the editorial at Miami news comment secton unzipped blog. Rekers’ got caught, but were the journalistic methods used acceptable? I don’t know what to make of it? This editorial is one critique.

      May 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @JoeyB: Its ok, we agree to disagree on the methods. Its nice for a change to engage with someone here on Queerty St. without resorting to schoolyard name calling…..Have a good one……….

      May 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 53 · Mark wrote, “@B: I think you’re wrong about that. Do you remember the kind of coverage Foley, Craig, and Haggard got? Wall to wall.”

      There are major differences between Rekers and the three you mentioned – the other three had an influence on national politics, which is a critical factor in determining if it is news or gossip. The New York Times tends not to print gossip on its front page, if at all.

      Craig and Foley were in the Senate and House respectively, as you pointed out, but Haggard was giving advice to the executive branch (under Bush), so there is a reason for those three to get wide coverage. Rekers by contrast was not a public figure.

      As a citation for Haggard, check out http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/15872 : “As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard has advised the White House on issues ranging from judicial appointments to steel tariffs, but he also sought to widen the agenda of Christian evangelicals into areas the Bush administration _and many of his Christian brethren _ would rather avoid.”

      May 9, 2010 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @WalkderDC:

      Again, you need to read what is actually written. Targeting Cooper isn’t the issue.

      YOU need to accept reality. Anderson Cooper did not do the piece at all. You refuse to accept that and keep attacking it as his work. You keep insisting a straight reporter would have done a better job than that in contradiction to the fact the piece you are talking about was done by a straight correspondent and you are not happy with her work. Obviously for YOU targeting Anderson Cooper is the issue and you want to bitch about him even if it makes no sense.

      Under regular circumstances the story probably would have rated a panel discussion on 360 after the piece like they’ve had with other gay stories lots of times, but this show was loaded down with important major stories.

      Randi Kaye’s report wasn’t a harsh one, but she’s straight so it no doubt matters less to her and it was probably also influenced by the fact Roman is trying to be so nice about everything. She included the Truth Wins Out guy’s crack “it seems Rekers doesn’t think gay people should raise boys, he thinks they should rent boys”, so she was open to slams on Rekers. If Roman had been critical of Rekers instead of saying that part of his job was actually carrying bags, they didn’t have sex, he wants to be Rekers’ friend, etc Kaye presumably would have put that in the report and it would have come out as something more damning.

      May 9, 2010 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 54 · Mark wrote, “I also get the sense I’m talking to some NARTH/FRC flak here (who else would try to make the story about the reporters and not reeking Rekers?).”

      I’d agree that something funny is going on with some people probably having vested interests – its the only thing that would explain the negative reaction from a small number of people when I pointed out the legal problems with taping telephone calls in Florida without permission (which is not a criticism of anyone, but simply a constraint people covering the story have to live with).

      May 9, 2010 at 8:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      “There was a written contract between Rekers and Roman, which called for Roman earning $75 per day in exchange for spending eight hours a day with Rekers, carrying his luggage, and providing one massage per day. (That’s $9.38/hour, for those keeping track.)”

      http://www.aflcio.org

      May 9, 2010 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 75 · Bill Perdue wrote, “There was a written contract between Rekers and Roman, which called for Roman earning $75 per day in exchange for spending eight hours a day with Rekers, carrying his luggage, and providing one massage per day. (That’s $9.38/hour, for those keeping track.)”

      QUEERTY reported it at the top of this page. See No. 29 for why $75 per day is misleading, and remember that they are not going to be carrying luggage 8 hours per day (minus the time for a massage) in a typical trip.

      May 10, 2010 at 12:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: Drivel.

      May 10, 2010 at 12:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 77 · Bill Perdue wrote, “@B: Drivel.”

      (Perdue’s way of covering up the fact that he didn’t read the article he was commenting on)

      May 10, 2010 at 1:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: Double drivel.

      May 10, 2010 at 2:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WalkderDC
      WalkderDC

      No. 73 · mk

      @WalkderDC:

      Again, you need to read what is actually written. Targeting Cooper isn’t the issue.

      YOU need to accept reality. Anderson Cooper did not do the piece at all. You refuse to accept that and keep attacking it as his work.

      ******

      But you are lying, the story was on “Anderson Cooper 360″ It is Anderson Coopers show. For you to say that he did not do this piece is beyond sad and pathetic. If you like Anderson Cooper that is fine. I am pointing out that other news programs really hit out at Rekers Closeted statues, his hypocrisy. Cooper who did do the overall piece, and who spoke during it did not do that. For you to claim that this was not his piece, even though it is his show and he spoke throughout is such a sad defence. What I do notice though is that you never once said that it was a good piece, just that it wasn’t Anderson Coopers fault because Poor Little Andy apparently has no control over what is on his own show.

      May 10, 2010 at 8:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GLENNMCGAHEE
      GLENNMCGAHEE

      An interesting twist to the story is that we in South Florida never saw the story in The New Times. Maybe it was online only but the publication was nowhere to be found down here. I pick up every issue each week. I only learned of the story from online sources. And AC is not the story here. He’s a spoiuled rich kid who reads news stories. He got the gig by having the money to travel to trouble spots and film himself. CNN probably insists he not come out publicly. Why should he? He’s got it made. He’s a buff, rich man. Leave him alone.

      May 10, 2010 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      @WalkderDC:

      I am not lying. You have no idea how newscasts work evidently. There are anchors, there are correspondents, there are producers, there are executives, and so on. Correspondents file their own reports. News anchors do not script the correspondents’ reports, not even under ordinary circumstances when the anchor is at hq instead of occupied in the field doing their own location reports.

      He is anchor of the show but the pieces are the work of whichever person files them. Some producers will have seen a correspondent piece at least, but it’s not even a safe bet that the anchor himself/herself would have seen a particular piece before air if it was a rush job like this and the anchor has been busy elsewhere with other stories of their own.

      Cooper who did do the overall piece, and who spoke during it did not do that.

      That is just false. He did not do the piece and he did not speak during the piece at all. That is Randi Kaye’s voice you are hearing and to claim otherwise is just bizarre. If by “overall piece” you are meaning the show, that is called anchoring and as already explained anchoring is not a puppetmaster role and the correpondents do their own work.

      He plainly only did the introduction, and during the introduction he directly and clearly set out Rekers’ record of anti-gay activism.

      What I do notice though is that you never once said that it was a good piece

      It wasn’t bad really, but like I said it wasn’t harsh so it wasn’t as satisfying to us as it could have been. As I said, though, Roman was so nice to Rekers and Roman supported Rekers on so many counts that a piece based around his interview would naturally come out some softness especially when it was the product of a straight woman with no personal stake in the matter. Roman seems like a very mild guy and he’s probably a bit scared about Rekers’ threats to sue him too.

      Poor Little Andy apparently has no control over what is on his own show.

      The show is named after him because he’s the central personality in front of the camera as the anchor, not because it’s some kind of one man operation with him doing every task. Like any such show there are research teams and correspondents who are delegated assignments and trusted to handle them.

      May 10, 2010 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp

      @81:

      There are two New Times papers in South Florida — Broward/Palm Beach and Miami. The Rekers story appeared in the Miami one, but as all of the central characters live in Dade, the Broward/Palm Beach paper decided not to pick it up.

      Thanks for reading,
      - BKT

      May 13, 2010 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheAwfulTruth
      TheAwfulTruth

      @Brandon K. Thorp: But that doesn’t make any sense, since this is a story that anyone with journalistic sense would know that it would attract national media, especially since Rekers is involved with organizations on a national level. Since when is location the only criteria to determine whether a story gets published or is of interest to the community?

      May 13, 2010 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brandon K. Thorp
      Brandon K. Thorp [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @TheAwfulTruth:

      I do not know why BPB New Times wouldn’t run the story. Nevertheless, you can easily verify who published what. Miami New Times is findable at http://www.miaminewtimes.com, and the Broward/Palm Beach paper is at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com.

      Thanks for reading,
      - BKT

      May 16, 2010 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.