Stop Reading Andrew Sullivan. Start Reading Glenn Greenwald


Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, who makes good money writing books and opinion-y things, volunteered to become a foe of new media — and, generally, anyone currently hunting for a job — by announcing his disdain for journalist types who want to earn money from their work. “I don’t think it is that terrible a thing if most journalists start earning less money,” wrote Sullivan on his blog, for which he gets paid. Quite nicely. “I wrote this blog daily for years for nothing because I love what I do. I’ve been really, really lucky to have landed at the Atlantic but the dirty secret is that I’d do this because I want to know more about the world and bring that information to as many people as possible, to advance those causes I believe are just and expose those lies that I think need exposing. And to have a great time. That this opportunity is now available for countless more people than ever before does indeed make this period not one of media decline but of media renaissance. From the tweets of revolutionaries to the testimonies of women who have had late term abortions, the potential for understanding more and deeper and better is real.”

And it is with this scribble that Mr. Sullivan officially vacated himself from being “one of us” and became “one of them.”

Sullivan, who earns a very comfortable living, is HIV positive and has the good fortune of being able to afford, through his journalism career, whatever drug cocktail and health care plan it is that keeps him healthy. It is through that prism he can make this declaration about what’s good for the working man — in this case, the journalist. It is also from Sullivan’s perch of comfort that he has lost any identity of being someone who must struggle and claw to earn a living.


For the rest of you in a similar position? He’s fine with you earning less. Here’s your chance to be one of the “revolutionaries,” your ability to feed your family be damned.

In the meantime, might we suggest the excellent work of fellow gay blogger Glenn Greenwald, who is exponentially more humble and offers the sort of genuine media analysis Mr. Sullivan can only crib from. Mr. Greenwald, meanwhile, is not as fortunate as Sullivan to copy/paste all day long, and actually understands real journalism costs money.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #andrewsullivan #blogs #glenngreenwald stories and more


  • Nick

    Glenn if you’re ever single, find me!

  • tc in nyc

    Wow,I’ve never read anything so bitchy. Andrew is a “homosexual blogger” and Glenn is a “fellow gay blogger.”

    And you fault the man for making an honest living, again, wow. And did you actually read the article that he linked too? I think not.

    I guess I’ll have to stop reading queerty and move on to something more intelligent.

  • Qjersey

    Sullivan is the epitome of the upper middle class white gay male narcissist (or narcississy)

  • Leto

    Since we took took Madonna back, I think the Brits should have to take Sullivan back!

  • Kyle

    TC is right – the distinction between “homosexual blogger” and “fellow gay blogger” is the same sort of purposeful vocab choice for which Queerty would write a scathing post slamming anybody else. Sullivan’s presence is beneficial for the gay rights movement as a whole because he provides a potential touchstone for gay conservatives. After the battles are over, we can return from the front line and start crabbing about Sullivan.

    About journalism – Sullivan’s 1-minute reaction to the article he linked to is stupid. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the original article (which is fantastically well written):

    “If the downside of the battered-down barriers to entry is less pay and lower status, the potential upside is that a flood of new entrants into the field could portend a journalistic renaissance. No, I’m not saying that every junior blogger and pint-size videographer will immediately stand as tall as Barton Gellman and Errol Morris and that the Washington Post and NBC News should be flushed. But journalism has generally benefited by increases in the number of competitors, the entry of new and once-marginalized players, and the creation of new approaches to cracking stories. Just because the journalism business is going to hell and it may no longer make economic sense to maintain mega-news bureaus at the center of war zones doesn’t mean that journalism isn’t thriving.”

  • M Shane

    I don’t get this “switch to. . ” routine. Is Queerty formally announcing their affiliation with the far right neo cons and antigay -liberationists. Well thatr’s to be admired, being truthful. But why would we switch to someone who would be no more substantial than Sullivan. He is certainly at least worse than an upper middle class white gay male narcissist”. He’s been the founding father of the neo-closet movement since it’s on set.

    for reg politics we have Signoreli and if you want real writing , truth and gay wit, Mark Simpson. who may be British but that seems to give him the distance he needsfor objectivity.
    Don’t settle for another right winger, you’ve made fools enough of yourselves.

  • Dave

    It is in EXTREMELY poor taste for Queerty to use Sullivan’s HIV status as some sort of joke in this article.

  • adamblast

    I’m not switching to, from, or off anybody–but I appreciate the highlighting of a few interesting gay blogger/commentators. On the issue of how much journalists or bloggers make, it’s not keeping this CA unemployment statistic up at night.

  • andynct

    This is so deranged.
    Queerty, take your Prozac!

  • Ken Hardy

    This is not at all necessary and should be removed from Queerty. Clearly there is not enough news to be covered by Queerty that they are turning on our own GLBT just for petty not so important things or just for the sake of criticizing. What is the point of this harshness and the HIV comment? This posting is in poor taste Queerty! Something else inspired this and it has severely discredited the viewpoint I had for Queerty!

  • Not So Fast Cowboy

    First I had absolutely no idea that Glenn Greenwald was gay.

    Now I do not often read his blog as his political prejudices do not generally align with my own prejudices.

    He first came to my attention over the “sock-puppet” controversy.

    But one would have thought that I would have heard about his sexuality even in the third person.

    This must count as some progress in public discourse that his sexuality is not what has defined him.

    It must also be said that his acute attention to what in his mind is abuse of the Constitution did not change simply by who is the occupant of the White House.

  • David

    To tc in nyc:

    I think you are correct on this sir. This site is just full of a bunch of bitter ‘homosexual bloggers’ complaining about everything they see fit.

  • Martin

    You can’t even begin to know what you owe to Andrew Sullivan. There would be no Queerty–no gay blogging–no blogging without him. He was out and fighting very likely before you were born. You are some spoiled trust fund baby who has no appreciation or perspective whence your gay rights have come.

    Sullivan blogged for no money. We sent him money via paypal back in the beginning. Now he has a corporate home that he earned. What have you earned? Do you have a Ph.D. from Harvard? Did you edit a national magazine for five years?

    Perhaps you should do some reading and understanding before writing your next post.

  • K H G

    Boo Queerty! How do we organize a boycott of this site!

  • Not So Fast Cowboy

    Sullivan will continue for some years to be a lightening rod of controversy.

    As someone who has trekked from right to left across the political spectrum in just a few short years he is not well received by either side.

    Any followers he had on the center-right ceased to read him regularly after 2005 or 2006. That he was an ill-fit on the right probably means that there is not a feeling of “betrayal” and more an annoyance that he is still looked on by many in the press as a conservative voice.

    The center-left still have the memories of his writings from his New Republic days up until his endorsement of John Kerry.

    It will still be a few years (unless there some further reversal) until he is as ensconced and respected on the left as say Arianna Huffington.

  • SM

    Andrew Sullivan wrote some excellent blogs on torture and the Green Revolution in Iran.

    Damn you all are nasty to each other…..Queerty just feeds hate.

  • K H G

    Write the editors of the site and tell them to remove this or issue a statement defending itself or threaten to leave the site! LGBT community is so divided. THIS BLOG or whatever proves that… United…the LGBT community is not. We crucify each other over anything.

  • Adam Woods

    bitter, party of one.

    man, I used to LOVE this website.

  • John Hooper

    @Ken Hardy: @Martin: What’s funny is while everyone is defending Sullivan, nobody has voiced their agreement for his argument: That professional journalists should be paid -less- for their work, and that denying them decent payment for their work is just fine. Sure, Sullivan has done great things and uses his platform for good causes, but he’s just made clear he’s out of touch with, well, folks like me: A reporter trying to pay off $80k in journalism school debt. I cannot make a living in the world Sullivan (who’s been able to score book deals and lucrative contracts) thinks is okay.

  • K H G

    @John Hooper:
    Sorry about your unfortunate luck at journalism John, I guess I wish you success but maybe not because like Andrew I am sure someone worse off then you (which I am sure exists) will probably try to boycott you and unnecessarily “out” your medical/personal history to discredit you. I do believe that successful Journalist, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, etc… during these troubled economic times should consider some pay cuts.

  • Tim in SF

    Since Jap hy left as editor of Queerty, this blog has been circling the drain.

    It’s apparent with this ham-handed article that it’s going down, down, down the toilet faster than I thought.

    Andrew Sullivan sucks; he’s a hypocrite of the highest order, smug and privileged and exhibiting all the worst traits of his new country of residence. But I don’t need you to tell me that. Urging I not read him is stupid and anti-intellectual. Queerty, don’t tell us who not to read.

    It’s a shame you plugged Glen Greenwald in this regrettable post. He’s one of the best reads on the internet and his mention in this post sullies his good name. If there is anything I should probably drop from my RSS feed, it wouldn’t be Sullivan, it would Queerty.

  • Tim in SF

    @K H G: … unnecessarily “out” your medical/personal history to discredit you.

    Is that what you think is being done here? It’s mentioned in the post above, sure, but Sullivan has talked about it on his own blog hundreds and hundreds of times. One of my complaints with that fat sack of smug shit is his wanting the federal government to step in and lift the HIV travel ban, but he doesn’t want any federalized health care for his (now) fellow citizens who can’t afford it.

    Fuck Sullivan in his loose, hairy, buggy ass.

  • Shannon

    I don’t agree with Sullivan’s comment. Journalists work their asses off for shitty pay. I also thought it was incredibly dumb during the election when Sullivan was trying to push the Trig Palin conspiracy. But I’m not going to boycott the guy because some anonymous “homosexual blogger” at Queerty decides to throw Sullivan into the mix of their daily formula of knee-jerk hit pieces and hot trash.

  • andynct

    Did Sullivan refuse to sponser or place ad’s in Queerty. Is that what this is really about?

  • TANK

    Andy Sullivan is such an intellectually stunted bore. His stagnant prose and lack of insight only serve to underline the fact that if he weren’t a gay christian conservative, no one would know his name. C’mon, his hero is michael oakeshott. How serious can you take him?

  • strumpetwindsock

    Well thanks to your recommendation I actually read some of Sullivan’s stuff. After reading a few pages I agreed with some of his ideas, and disagreed with others.

    I thought his comments on the Jack Shafer piece were simplistic and trite, but from the writer’s perspective there is some truth in them.
    Journalists and bloggers should want the passion before the paycheque, but that doesn’t erase the fact that underfunding and concentration of big media is a threat to journalism and democracy.

    That said, I don’t think a reactionary response like telling me to not read someone because you disagree with him is helping the cause of journalism either.

    And furthermore, if you are going to criticise the man, maybe you should go after his ideas, rather than bitch and whine about the fact you’re making less money than he is. On that point, I think you might want to pay a bit more attention to what Sullivan had to say.

    NOT reading, especially the words of people you disagree with, doesn’t give you any more moral authority; it just makes you uninformed.

  • Salubrious

    I think what can be taken away from this piece is that everyone should check out Glen Greenwald.

    In related news, I didn’t know he is gay until now.

  • Vanhattan

    I regularly read both Sullivan and Greenwald and get a lot out of both.

    As far as Sullivans comments regarding the media IMHO I believe that he is mostly correct.

    However, your ignorance shows because Greenwald is MUCH MORE critical of the main stream media than Sullivan will ever be. I for one agree with both and especially Greenwald that most msm ‘journalists’ are crappy at best and more media whores than anything else.

    Do your research before posting such a overly simplistic viewpoint that has absolutely no depth or accuracy. Your viewpoint doesn’t even really make sense.

  • Dabq

    Sullivan was never ‘one of us’ he was always about Sullivan, and Sullivans wants and needs, and is nothing short of GOP paid bigot.

  • ben

    Glenn is an excellent blogger but I don’t think he ever discusses gay rights issues. It seems like he wants to distance himself from that.

  • Roy Rogers Oldenkamp

    The exasperated responses to this article means it’s provocative, I guess, so at least there’s some dialog going here, not some autodidactic meandering as is prevalent in the blogosphere, myself included. That said, Japhy IS a Golden God…

    btw esquire pays three bucks a word. Journalism is not lucrative, in general.

  • Mike

    Andrew Sullivan deserves the Pulitzer for his coverage of the Iranian election.

  • pucemoment

    The “revolutionaries” you are ignorantly referring to from Sullivan are the courageous Iranian protesters standing up for their rights and votes. Get a clue. Mike (No. 33) above me might very well right about that.

    If baseless nitpicking is your thing, Queerty, then I encourage your browsers to read TOWLEROAD.

    You’ve lost your credibility.

  • K H G

    YES switch to TOWLEROAD…. none of this crazy nonsense there. Check it out!

  • Dusty is pretty fun!

  • Rudy

    @Qjersey: Did you invent “narcississy?”
    It’s brilliant – I expect lots of people to bew using it next week when Bruno opens.
    But as to this article, I can’t see any sense in comparing Greenwald to Sullivan.
    Whether straight or gay, Greenwald is one of the most serious and best journalists in any media.
    Sullivan is a gay pundit who can turn a phrase.

  • The Gay Numbers

    Sullivan’s support of the racist Bell Curve book and the lead up to the war was enough years ago for me to realize he is not very serious. He regularly writes things that tells me that he absolutely does not under American politics. He talks like a European conservatives about issues, not American. So he can ting it with the requisite class and racism, but ultimately not understand how as a gay person he’s not better than anyone else he chooses to judge in Christian America.

  • Huh

    The mentioning of his HIV status is beyond tasteless – let me do a translation as to what queerty meant – Andrew , you fucking aids-ridden fag – you should be thankful you’re alive and eek out an ordinary life and not rock boats – you ungrateful swine – who we have and are saving every day from a horrible death. Who are you to go out and give opinions and be controversial and dare suggest that I shouldn’t make as much money as you even though I work much less, am not as smart and have fewer PR skills. How dare you LIVE when we only meant for your infected self to exist.
    Andrew’s status has nothing to do with his privledge – and it gives him plenty to have to overcome inandofitself – probably more than your excruciating choice to have to tone down the designer coffee every morning. You, Queerty are scum. Sully ain’t perfect and is a narcissist, but you are a just plain asswipe of average intelligence and little imagination.

  • The Gay Numbers

    The reality for anyone not an upper class gay male is that indeed class does matter with regard to ability afford HIV treatment.

    So, all this “I am offended” b.s. is just that- b.s.

  • Andrew W

    Good heavens, Queery. What is happening to you? The gist of Sullivan’s piece is that journalism is motivated by more than just money – a truth that citizen journalism is driving home every day – and you see this as grounds to throw a tantrum? Did you read the piece he was linking to? Why take this barking mad protectionist stance? Are you in the midsts of contract renegotiations?

    The ‘homosexual blogger’ versus ‘fellow gay blogger’ thing is the real capper here, though. You need to apologise for that piece of coded indulgence. Perez can’t get away with that sort of behaviour; neither can you.

  • cbjames

    This is one of the saddest blog entries I have ever read.

    No one should ever take Queerty seriously ever again. You are clearly not a serious site.

    I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Sullivan says, what would be the point of reading something you always agreed with, but his is a serious site. One’s opposition should always be considered.

    Same goes for Mr. Greenwald.

    Queerty, however, is no longer a site I’ll be visiting.

  • cbjames

    And “exponentially more humble”? How is that even possible?

  • strumpetwindsock

    @The Gay Numbers:

    No. What is offensive is a far over-the-top reaction to the man’s opinion, including using his medical condition as a means of shaming him and telling him he should shut the fuck up.

    It is also offensive to blow Sullivan’s statement far out of proportion, brand him as one of “them” (and I would like to know what Queerty means by “them”) and insist we stop reading his work.

    Is he personally responsible for the fact he lives under a medical system where the wealthy or insured you get special treatment?

    Whether you agree with his statement or not, if he muzzled himself or changed his opinion on issues based on his personal interests would that make him a better journalist? Or would it just make him a self-interested mouthpiece?

    Frankly I don’t entirely agree with Sullivan’s point either. Specifically I am not happy with the prospect of journalists earning less, and I do think that there is a crisis in big media cutting back, consolidating, and being controlled by corporate interests. So I am not pleased with him making a flippant statement without acknowledging that fact, which I am sure he is aware of.

    On the other hand, I completely agree with his sentiment that if you are just writing for a buck and do not have the passion then you are definitely missing something. There are plenty of writers who do work for nothing, for very little, or who even put their lives at stake to get the news out.

    Freedom of speech means having the freedom to make stupid or controversial statements sometimes. If you disagree, then challenge the ideas, but don’t tell him that his condition invalidates his opinion.

  • TANK

    I don’t see him being told to shut up here. It’s just that there’s a big tension between his ability to afford costly hiv/aids treatments through journalism and punditry and his criticism of exactly that type of compensation. But no, he’s not being told to be quiet about it…or being silenced (heaven forbid that apologist for religious intolerance should ever be silenced!)…however awful and easily taken apart his feeble arguments are (seriously, you should see hitchens lay into that faggot–it’s merciless and remains entertaining. Though, he should be very grateful for the celebrity status to be humiliated by hitchens).

    Oh, and freedom of speech means the freedom to make stupid controversial statements all of the time–something sullivan excels at.

  • strumpetwindsock


    Would his statements have been any more acceptable if he were not HIV positive, or if he lived in a country with a system of universal health care?

    If this medical condition is irrelevant to the argument then why should it be brought up in the first place?

  • TANK


    And what is the argument? Let’s see–journalists should be compensated less because that would motivate some hazy notion of “True journalism,” by attracting people who would do it for free? No…people don’t work for free–they are motivated to do what it is somehow. It’s called self interest, and that’s a large part of how markets work–they connect supply with demand through self interest. If you’re interested in learning about how markets operate, you sould take an economics class. Now journalism is not a different market than any other market. It has a product and producers of that product, and demand for that product–marketing, and sale of product (advertising for revenue to continue making and distributing that product). THe medium is changing, that’s all…proving yet another canadian “thinker” wrong. The news, however, will always be in demand. I don’t think you’re going to get a new breed of “real journalists” if compensation diminishes. I think, instead, what you’re likely going to get is groupthink with the absence of such incentives to take risks, and cold hard cash (lots of it) required to research and break interesting stories.

    Second, his statements would have been more acceptable if he had the conviction stand by his “principles” and not accept as much money for his punditry. As it stands, he’s well compensated for what he does (give his rather unimpressive opinion, basically), and accepts that compensation without argument. Yet, for him to criticize it is to slap the hand that he greedily feeds from at the exclusion of compensation for other journalists who do a far better job than he does (don’t just recycle other people’s journalism and give their armchair analysis, but research and break stories themselves), but don’t have his name recognition.

    So would it have mattered if his healthcare costs were not more than paid for by his substantial remuneration through punditry? Of course not, because that substantial remuneration would still exist for him to enthusiastically accept and spend elsewhere (which he does, too).

  • TANK

    I see this as another manifestation of andy sullivan treating a fairytale like a fact, while never having to deal with the unpleasant reality of that fairytale. He clings to his delusions very tightly…as if “real journalists” weren’t always compensated, and celebrity journalists paid comparatively well.

  • strumpetwindsock


    Sullivan’s statement that he has no problem with journalists earning less can be taken apart pretty easily on its own merits.

    Also, I think I made it pretty clear (several times) that I disagree with it, so I’m not sure who you think you are arguing with… but I can tell you it’s not me.

    My point is that to trot out Sullivan’s HIV status is irrelevant, lazy and discriminatory Even if the charge of Sullivan is being hypocritical is correct does that make it somehow acceptable to respond to it with substandard hackwork?

    And on that note, the demand that we stop reading him because he is one of “them” , not one of “us” is simply laughable.

  • strumpetwindsock

    ‘scuse me… respond to HIM with substandard hackwork.

  • TANK


    I don’t think it is lazy, irrelevant and discriminatory. I think it’s relevant because it speaks to his compensation; the very compensation he’s deriding in his rather obtuse and naive “religious” opinion of “men were men back in the day, and journalists…why, m’boy, they were journalists! It’s called integrity! Rabble rabble rabble rabble– who cared about the Truth (‘T’ruth) more than they did their careers and their livelihoods”….sentimentality like that is dangerous (when applied to everything from racism and xenophobia to religious intolerance).

    But your suggestion to numbers that the “genuine” opinions of the opinion spinners like Sullivan would somehow be silenced for blatant hypocrisy is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that opinions are unbiased? That’s what opinions are, whether andy holds back from rendering himself a hypocrite or lets loose on yet another sanctimonious crusade (lawdy, that boy was born on a pulpit holding a bible in one hand and a bottle of poppers in the other)….biased and, in andy’s case, about as informative about the world as alice in wonderland. But then again, I just feel like singling him out when there are worse cases of hypocrisy and nonexistent standards and faux moralizing amongst his heterosexual counterparts.

  • jim

    stop reading queerty. start reading towleroad. simple.

  • TANK

    The difference seems to be that towleroad is a news feeder “blog,” occasionally providing interviews of politicians like barney frank, whereas queerty provides that and opinion. I’m not saying which is better, but I like the fact that it’s not JUST linked to stories that I could get on my own at the source. Though, of course, it does save time.

  • strumpetwindsock


    I am aware that all opinion pieces are, by definition, biased.

    More importantly, I assume Sullivan’s statement, ill-informed or not, is his honest opinion.

    To criticize his opinion based on of his physical illness and his financial gain is to imply that he should be dishonest and put his self interest before expressing what he really thinks.

    If I were to do that it would imply that I’d rather hear lies than an honest opinion I disagree with.

    Me, I’d rather just challenge the argument on its own merits.

    As I said, the argument is the same regardless of whether it was written by an able-bodied or ill person, and to exploit that illness is the mark of a lazy writer.

  • The Gay Numbers

    @strumpetwindsock: Realilty check: he does not give a shit about anyone else. I don’t care if he’s personally responsible. If he’s going to be indifferent as he is to the live sothers. I am sure as hell not going to give a crap about his

  • TANK

    To criticize his opinion based on of his physical illness and his financial gain is to imply that he should be dishonest and put his self interest before expressing what he really thinks.

    No it’s not. He hasn’t said that journalists earn too much money, but has implied it by saying that they could stand to earn less. Perhaps he’s literally saying nothing at all, though…which is probably more accurate (it’s just bullshit).

    His self interest is what he really believes, as has been revealed over a lifetime of scandal and hypocrisy. A person’s behavior–including their linguistic behavior–is a good judge of their beliefs. What he really thinks, however, is at issue. We don’t know this, actually, given the rift between what he says and what he does. The common rift between SUllivan’s words and his deeds. It is HIS opinion–it’s not like he’s just reporting on a state of affairs independent from his beliefs/opinions. It is inherently and inextricably a conflict of interest here as it is about nothing more than his opinion. So if he were somehow muzzled by this apparent dissonance between his stated and actual beliefs, good. At least he wouldn’t be a hypocritical baffoon.

    I mean, you act like there’s a truth here independent of sullivan’s mere opinions on journalist compensation that, despite his apparenty hypocrisy, he’d be a better journalist for reporting. There isn’t.

  • TANK

    More importantly, I assume Sullivan’s statement, ill-informed or not, is his honest opinion.

    But you see, that’s what’s being called into question by this hypocrisy. Why the hell would you believe such a thing? Do you know anything about this person?

  • The Gay Numbers

    @strumpetwindsock: a) He’s being criticized for hypocrisy. No one gives a shit about him but-for that the fact he’s as jerk who then thinks he should be treated special.

    You are delusional or do not read him regularly if ou don’t get that from him. For example, again, his views of race and gender and class are bad because he does not believe in “special interests”, but he somehow elevates gays and AIDS issue to special importance. Although,. they are by definition the same concepts- special interests. Why? because they directly impact him. That’s the definition of hypocricy- one set of rules for oneself that differs from others.

    Same here with money. He can afford to be snotty because hypocritically he already obtained his money from the very enterprise he would tell others to not obtain money. It is hypocritical and that’s why things like his HIV status matters. It should not be given any special treatment than anything else if he trully believes what he says.

  • TANK

    At the very least you agree that he’s delusional. However, the delusional need to be made aware of why they’re delusional, and what they really seem to value. Have a conversation with a anti choicer, and you’ll get around to the real value they place on human life…and it won’t be pretty when you do.

    But go on to insist that there’s no conflict of interest between andy’s opinion on lower journalist compensation based upon an utterly vacuous idealism (which just smacks of faux christian sacrifice) and the fact that he’s a highly paid “journalist” who can be glibb about the lethality of hiv/aids (which he has been) because he can well afford the treatments is, itself, delusional.

  • strumpetwindsock

    @The Gay Numbers:

    Fine you guys. Argue whatever you want if you feel a need to stoop to that level.

    We could also make fun of that mask that for some reason Queerty wanted to show him wearing. I’m sure that was just a coincidence; it really brings out his eyes.

    I just think it’s utterly unnecessary and dishonest. There’s no need to get personal about him; his argument is easy enough to tear apart.

    The argument would be just as wrong if it came from some factory worker who was thrown out of work. But I wouldn’t accuse him of just being jealous because he ruined his knees.

    I think Queerty just used that tactic because it’s sensationalist.

    And really, do you boys actually buy this us and them stuff? Gee, maybe that makes me one of them, even though I disagree with Sullivan.

  • Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace

    Glenn is awesome. Start reading him now in the age of Obama.**

    Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut.

    Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, national health, “war” funding, bail-outs for Wall St looter, Israel-Palestine, etc…

    What would Malcolm X, MLK, and Reverend Wright say?

    Some change…small change….

  • TANK


    Stooped to that level? You realize that you’ve just begged the question.

  • strumpetwindsock


    Did I not say it clearly enough?

    I think bringing up the man’s illness is discriminatory, sensationalist, and a poor excuse for real criticism. It is stooping to a low level of attack. And it’s even worse to see it on a blog which presumes to follow journalistic principles.

    Did I make a joke about your flatulence or never getting laid?
    No, because that would be an unfair attack.

    (and untrue… I am sure you are a bronze god)

  • TANK


    Now instead of just your conviction–how about an argue against the argument I’ve provided to the contrary.

  • The Gay Numbers

    @strumpetwindsock: You treat HIV status as sacrosanct. It is not. Nor do I feel the need to tip toe around class issues related to it You have your priorities. I have mine.. I feel sorry for the low income more than I do for a wealthy hypocrite. You feel sorry for the hypocrite.

  • strumpetwindsock

    @The Gay Numbers:

    Oh nonsense.
    I think he’s dead wrong about journalists’ wages and I said why.
    I think he made a big mistake in ignoring the fact there is a crisis in the media, specifically to do with funding and concentration.

    And I don’t give a shit about him or his HIV status.

    My issue is with faux journalists taking discriminatory cheap shots and making hay over what should be a straightforward issue. In most developed countries with a decent medical and pharmacare program the issue of his status would have no relevance. Why make it one because he is in the U.S.? If it was a Brit, a German or a Canadian making the statement his status would be non-issue.

    And again, I think he’s wrong on that particular point, and if he were an unemployed web troll he would still be wrong and I wouldn’t make his personal circumstances part of the argument. If you want to do so that is your choice. I think it is a cheap shot.
    But for a blogger or journalist to make that kind of argument (and to publish the photo they did) is unprofessional in my opinion.

  • TANK

    And again, I think he’s wrong on that particular point, and if he were an unemployed web troll he would still be wrong and I wouldn’t make his personal circumstances part of the argument.

    That’s beside the point. I think his serostatus is relevant to why he’s wrong.

    If you want to do so that is your choice. I think it is a cheap shot.
    But for a blogger or journalist to make that kind of argument (and to publish the photo they did) is unprofessional in my opinion.

    WHY? If it’s relevant to why he’s wrong (the blatant hypocrisy and what he actually believes–the beliefs operative in behaviors relevant to assertion), then what are you talking about? What reason do you have for saying such a thing other than “it’s just my opinion”–what’s your reasoning here other than your belief that it’s cheap and sensationalistic and exploitative–if it is relevant, as I have argued, why is it wrong? What you’ve been trying to do is argue that it’s not relevant…well, I think I’ve provided enough reasons to consider it relevant…to your assertion that it’s not. WHy isn’t it relevant?

  • The Gay Numbers

    @strumpetwindsock: And my issue with you is like tank says you are not providing us a reason why this is not an example of Sullivan’s hypocricy. Why should it not be used? Saying that the site does not do good journalism in general does not respond to the specific instance.

  • strumpetwindsock

    @The Gay Numbers:

    Sure, I’ll tell you what I think of this specific instance

    Queerty published a highly unflattering photo of the man.

    They declaring him one of “them” and told us in the headline to stop reading his material.

    How did they challenge his argument that he isn’t bothered by journalists earning less?

    Did they talk about how underfunding is reducing the amount of good investigative journalism, the alternative media, and coverage of news outside major urban centres? Did they mention how media concentration and ownership by big business is threatening press freedom, increasing censorship, and stories that are little more than advertising? Did they talk about threats to media unions, or about journalists receiving a fair wage for material published online?

    In terms of actual criticism of his ideas, all I read was a parting shot that “real journalism costs money”, with no background explanation whatsoever.

    What did they focus on instead? – that the man is a traitor and a hypocrite because he needs his fat salary to pay for the drugs he needs to keep himself alive, and that he has lost touch with an understanding of what it means to have to earn a living.

    Real incisive journalism. I don’t think I have ever read such a stirring defense of freedom of the press.

    So it is not simply that I think his health and job security is irrelevant, it is more telling that Queerty chose to focus on those things exclusively.

    An actual defense of journalism was barely an afterthought.

  • TANK

    Oh, an unflattering photo? Are there flattering photos of andrew sullivan? Seriously. BFD.

    Did they talk about how underfunding is reducing the amount of good investigative journalism, the alternative media, and coverage of news outside major urban centres?

    Why would they? They’re focusing on Sullivan’s sanctimony. I mean, if they were to talk about these variables (which admittedly would be more interesting than Sullivan’s contribution; amounting to “I’m for it!”), it would be a separate entry (on a different blog, perhaps) with, perhaps Sullivan being one factor amongst many.

    Did they mention how media concentration and ownership by big business is threatening press freedom, increasing censorship, and stories that are little more than advertising? Did they talk about threats to media unions, or about journalists receiving a fair wage for material published online?

    Read above. Those are separate, though legitimate, issues for conversation. Focus, grasshopper. Prove your case that Sullivan’s serostatus is irrelevant to his take on the matter, and thus that he’s not a hypocrite as well as completely wrong. If you’d like to prove Sullivan’s opinion wrong, that’s an issue that seems to have been dealt with in the comments; but separate from Andy’s grossly privileged bloviation.

    In terms of actual criticism of his ideas, all I read was a parting shot that “real journalism costs money”, with no background explanation whatsoever.

    Are you disputing that it costs a lot of money to fund for investigative journalism? What background explanation do you require? You need to pay for a team of people to do research on paper trails and specialists to make that information sensible to the reporter, interview sources, site inspections of locations, the cost of flying teams to locales to do the interviews, legal fees involved…salaries, discretionary funds and expense accounts (and this, Andy would probably say is what needs to be cut back on because hey, a good journalist doesn’t care about compensation…because journalism isn’t a profession, but a calling–except when it concerns him in practice, not “principle”. Though, of course, what’s principle if it’s never practiced?…what a holier than thou douche). This is entirely separate from the remuneration of journalists, however. After trashing his endorsement, we’re now trashing the infinite gulf between what he preaches and what he performs. Yup, the hypocrisy.

    What did they focus on instead? – that the man is a traitor and a hypocrite because he needs his fat salary to pay for the drugs he needs to keep himself alive, and that he has lost touch with an understanding of what it means to have to earn a living.

    I don’t know if he needs his salary anymore. He’s made quite a bit of money off of people willing to pay him for his opinion–filtering actual journalism with his “interpretation”/spin. But back on track. But back on track. Even if he weren’t hiv positive, he’d still be a hypocrite. The fact that he is, and is so damn glib about hiv/aids when people can’t afford the cutting edge designer cocktails that keep him not only alive, but pretty healthy (not to mention the comfortable life his opinions have provided for him), is a flagrant example of his unwillingness to go down with the ship after giving the demolition crew permission to scuttle it. The only difference is that he’s on a yacht watching the ship full of his BETTERS go down with binoculars, sipping on a drink. How can you not see that?

    Real incisive journalism. I don’t think I have ever read such a stirring defense of freedom of the press.

    What? Criticizing his lack of consistency is somehow a threat to the free press? If anything, it vindicates it.

    So it is not simply that I think his health and job security is irrelevant, it is more telling that Queerty chose to focus on those things exclusively.

    And why not? This is about HIS HYPOCRISY, not the total idiocy of the opinion itself.

    This isn’t the TOPIC you would have liked. Why not find something about those topics that would better suit your needs, then? Clearly you misunderstand the topic at issue. Let me refresh you. You still haven’t demonstrated how andy’s serostatus and the fat salary he banks and doubtless large bank account he has that he uses a fraction of to fund expensive treatments to manage it is irrelevant to his OPINION on lower wages for journalists. He’s a hypocrite, and insofar as he is, his conflicting behaviors void any substantive contribution he could make on the matter (does he even believe what he writes? There’s no reason to believe it). You’ve already said you take him at his word…

  • strumpetwindsock

    Plus there’s the jab against “cut and paste” work when well over half the article is a reprint of Sullivan’s piece and a few links to Greenwald’s work.

    Really the only original thing in it is the diatribe about Sullivan – again, not actually challenging any of his ideas, but instead calling him out of touch because of his job security and the important bit of personal medical information that he would wither and die without it.

  • TANK

    ANd if you’re going to criticize queerty’s journalistic integrity (…LOL!), you can include most other gay blogs, too…as I don’t come here for the fucking news (nor do I, or anyone else, go to most gay sites for that)! I come here to be fucking entertained! If you haven’t noticed, gay blogs aren’t news breakers, but opinion makers.

  • TANK

    In fact, isn’t the huffpost JUST NOW getting an investigative reporting team? These are ALL opinion generators.

  • TANK

    Really the only original thing in it is the diatribe about Sullivan – again, not actually challenging any of his ideas, but instead calling him out of touch because of his job security and the important bit of personal medical information that he would wither and die without it.

    Now you’re gettin’ it. Focus on that–because that’s what this post is about.

  • strumpetwindsock


    I have repeated numerous times that I disagree with the idea that journalists should earn a lower wage.

    I would disagree with it no matter who said it, regardless of whether the person is HIV positive or not.


  • TANK


    Okay, reread what I said. That’s not what this is about. This is about andy’s hypocrisy. How clearer can it be?

  • strumpetwindsock


    If you mean it’s a highly unethical hatchet job, with no journalistic standards whatsoever then yes, I got it a long time ago. I didn’t need you to point it out to me.

  • TANK


    but why? Once again, you are saying that sullivan’s hypocrisy is irrelevant to his opinion, and to make issue of it is wrong. This assumes that he’s not,in fact, a hypocrite. You have provided absolutely no reasoning for this.

  • strumpetwindsock


    Well to make a case that the man IS a hypocrite you actually have to do a bit of critical analysis of what he said.

    Unfortunately the author of this piece forgot that part and jumped straight to the condemnation

    It does tell a bit about where his priorities are in terms of getting to the truth of the matter.

  • TANK


    LOL! You don’t read what other people post. The case has been made. In fact, it was made in the post you’re commenting on.

  • TANK

    Really the only original thing in it is the diatribe about Sullivan – again, not actually challenging any of his ideas, but instead calling him out of touch because of his job security and the important bit of personal medical information that he would wither and die without it.

    Who wrote this? ????? You’ve definitely lost the thread here tonight.

  • strumpetwindsock


    There was no reasoned analysis or challenge of his ideas whatsoever.

    The author took one sentence – Sullivan saying he didn’t think it was terrible that most journalists are earning less.
    He didn’t even offer a counter-argument, but instead went straight into saying that Sullivan is out of touch because he has a good salary which he needs because he has HIV.

    You may be impressed by it TANK, but frankly it is hack writing.

  • TANK


    You consistently miss the point. It is now intentional. You simply fail to grasp the topic.

  • Jaisne Blue Sexton

    Sullivan is a scumbag, and he’s always been a scumbag. How old are you people? Old enough to remember when he was trolling the internet describing himself as a manly muscular white guy looking for many muscular black guys for barebacking parties.

    For those not familiar with that crappy time in his life, I sh*t you not, that’s how he described himself, along with what he wanted. And YES, he was HIV+ at the time, something that he did NOT disclosure in these ads looking for someone to have sex with while NOT wearing a condom.

    Somehow, he’s worked his way back to being on CNN, etc, as a talking *sshole.

  • strumpetwindsock

    @Jaisne Blue Sexton:

    Big deal.

    If that’s how he lives his life does that somehow justify others from forgetting what professional conduct is?

    I still expect bloggers to do their homework properly and deal with real and serious issues, not call people on their health, or make fun of their weight (something that is going on in another recent thread).

    Speaking of how old people are, why defend rhetoric that most of us left behind in grade school? If the man says something objectionable is it really that hard to make a simple rebuttal without resorting to the moral equivalent of calling him “poopy pants”?

  • strumpetwindsock


    Sorry, I don’t have my reading glasses on. “Why isn’t he a heretic”, you wrote?

    TANK, you’re free to be your usual charming self all you want.

    Beyond that, I think you can glean my feelings on the issue from my past comments.

  • TANK


    Answer the question. YOu’re entire condemnation/defense rests on it. You deny this for some bizarre reason. Why isn’t he a hypocrite?

  • strumpetwindsock


    You really do have your big grand inquisitor hat on, don’t you?

    If the man’s ideas are unsound, there should be no problem in discrediting them on their own merit. The writer of this article did not even bother trying to do that.

    If Mr. Hooper (the author), this site and you want to focus on his personal life that is up to you. I consider it sleazy, unprofessional, and a distraction from the real issue.

    That’s my position, and it has nothing to do with Mr. Sullivan’s motivation whatsoever.

    You’re so focused on this that you’re not even aware of the directions in which I could take this argument (along the same lines of Mr. Sullivan’s hypocrisy), but will not, because it would be unfair.

    You’re an intelligent man; think about it.

    But I’m done repeating myself at your say-so. I’m out of here.

  • TANK


    You just don’t get the point of the post. This isn’t about the merits of his “opinion” (which is called into question by his hypocrisy)–this is about his hypocrisy, which you deny. So why isn’t he a hypocrite?

  • strumpetwindsock


    Yes, I understand perfectly that what Sullivan actually said wasn’t of much concern to Mr. Hooper or Queerty.

  • TANK


    So why isn’t he a hypocrite? Prove your case.

  • strumpetwindsock


    TANK, the question of whether or not the man is a hypocrite has nothing to do with the case I was making. (do you even remember what it is? Go back and read it). And nowhere did I say I felt he was or was not one, because (again) it is completely irrelevant to my argument.

    You’re talking to the squirrels in your head again

  • TANK


    Of course it did. IT must have. You disagree with this “hatchett job” as you put it–well, it’s about his hypocrisy. Why isn’t he a hypocrite, then?

  • anyway


    The biggest shame about the difficult revenue structure of online media is that there is so little room for thought-provoking new media content.

    Case in point: Queerty fires Japhy, and replaces him with mindless fight-picking posts like this and a user-hostile pictorial interface for artificially pumping up pageviews.

Comments are closed.