Deborah Howell had her work cut out for her this Sunday. The Washington Post ombudsman had to explain why her paper did not mention fallen American soldier Major Alan Rogers' homosexuality.
Rogers died in Iraq early this year and, according to his friends, begrudgingly hid his homosexuality under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Those same friends say Rogers would have wanted his untimely death to highlight our army's unfair treatment of gays.
Howell explained yesterday, however, that the original story did include Rogers's homosexuality, but Executive Editor Len Downie made the call to excise that tidbit because "there was no proof that Rogers was gay and no clear indication that, if he was, he wanted the information made public."
Howell goes on to defend Downie's decision, which is in line with the Post's editorial standard on sexuality: it shouldn't be mentioned unless absolutely integral. Not all gay activists, the paper believes, are gay, which is definitely true.
Though she doesn't criticize Downie outrightly, Howell does some more digging into Rogers' life – including chatting with other activist friends – and concludes that the story would have been "richer" with more details on Rogers' private life.
The Post was right to be cautious, but there was enough evidence — particularly of Rogers's feelings about "don't ask, don't tell" — to warrant quoting his friends and adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it.
Now that the story's out, perhaps Rogers' death can do some actual good…
Just How Much of Twilight’s $140M Box Office Will Go Toward Fighting Marriage? (19)
· damon459 says: what’s with the site blaming the mormons for prop 8 yes they were part of it... »
1,500 Of You Complained Because Adam Lambert Got Mock Head on TV (18)
· SPAB_Book says: http://tinyurl.com/y88kgs b »
TELL QUEERTY: How Are You Spending Thanksgiving? (16)
· christopher di spirito says: This is our last Thanksgiving in New York. A lot of our house is in... »
· Mark says: LIving overseas so no Thanksgiving; though even if I were in the States, wouldn’t... »
PHOTOS: He’s Got a Pera Aces (1)
· Daniel says: Fantastic muscle definition. »
People Forgot to Mention Anything Gay About ‘Sexiest Rising Star’ Matt Bomer (23)
· Taylor says: I don’t get the point. I think he’s a very sexy guy no matter if he’s... »
So Lady Gaga Was Pretty Great at the AMAs. And Adam Lambert Was Pretty Terrible (96)
· mikeandrewsdantescove says: Thanks for posting all the performances. It was obvious to me that Janet... »
Miriam Mercado Just Became Puerto Rico’s Judy Shepard (2)
· blackjack44 says: this is so very sad and because of this story i will be adding a chapter to the... »
EXCUSES: The Senate Just Knocked DADT’s Hearings Into Next Year (30)
· Daniel says: Just remember to vote in the Democratic primaries and hold any democrat accountable for... »
PHOTOS: Rebel With a Cause (22)
· allancsn says: Not telling – off to the gym. »
I thought he was an activist working to overturn the DADT policy. If so, then put that in. You don't have to be Gay to oppose DADT. It is a huge waste of time, money and talent to enforce.
DADT is not 'enforced as such. It only tells people that if they want to fight they have to lie well. It's a morally reprehensable law if anything. The real story is that to fight in the American Army the guy had to lie about who he was. Although the war is criminal, and he didn't belong there in the first place, the principle should be pointed out-on top of lieing he ended up dying .
Can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT.
M Shane – if you're replying to me, thanks, but I have no clue what you're trying to say. "not enforced as such?" OK, they don't check each and every servicemember on a weekly basis but the military certainly does investigations and spends gobs on money on them and drums out people that have been invested in heavily then turns the tables and asks these same people to pay back their training. Yes, the law is reprehensible – I think anyone on this blog would concur with that. And your last sentence "can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT." What are you trying to say there? Thanks.
Should Slain Soldier's Sexuality Have Been Published?
No! No need to state whether he was gay, straight or whatever. The man is dead. Let him rest!
DADT is more that our right to serve and fight. It's about human rights. How can the Repugs tell us we are not worthy to have equal rights after we have served this country as service members?
In reference to the Major, it should be notated that he was was working to remove DADT. They should make note of that on his OBIT.