Elena Kagan will surely face an uphill battle against Republican senators, who won’t be happy with her attempt, as Harvard Law’s dean, to ban military recruiters from campus because the armed forces discriminates against gays. That’s why the Obama administration and its allies are working overtime to convince the media to write nice, or at least nicer things about Obama’s new Supreme Court pick. Like they did with the Times. And even, apparently, The Daily Beast‘s Peter Beinart, who explains the reaching out like so:
The day after the [Times] story appeared, I received an email from a prominent Democratic lawyer offering me the same kind of assistance that the Obama administration seems to have provided the Times. In a previous Beast column, I had criticized Kagan’s action as dean, arguing that barring recruiters from Harvard Law School because the military discriminates against gays was as counterproductive as banning ROTC from Harvard during Vietnam. That comparison, my correspondent insisted, “rests on a fundamental category mistake…what happened at Harvard Law School [during Kagan’s tenure] was not anything like the anti-military policies of the ‘70s that were directed at the military because they were the military.”
[…] My correspondent went on to argue that I was wrong to call Harvard’s ban on recruitment “anti-military” since the school’s anti-discrimination policy applied to all employers
Ah, the art of spin — a concept that is not the same as “disinformation.” Since the White House won’t offer it, maybe journalists covering Kagan’s confirmation might sneak in a little transparency?
delurker again
It’s pretty clear queerty editors are fucking confused and/or deeply retarded and they don’t understand the issues they write about.
Cam
No. 1 · delurker again
It’s pretty clear queerty editors are fucking confused and/or deeply retarded and they don’t understand the issues they write about.
________________-
I have no problem with people correcting the editors or any other people on here, hell, it’s fun to read. But if you could be specific in the area you think they got wrong. I just saw a post from another source who wrote a piece on her and received an e-mail from the administration arguing a point, and hen Queerty commenting on “Spin”
Since the story was mostly based on other reporters talking about their experiences, where were the editors here “Fucking Confused”?
Sine
Well, the reason she gave when this happened was that the school doesn’t let any recruiters for companies with similar discriminatory policies have on campus recruitment days. Saying the military doesn’t deserve extra special treatment because they’re the military doesn’t make her anti-military, it shows sanity and rationality.
Banning the military because it’s the military is one thing; banning the military because of the same discriminatory policies you ban other organizations for is a completely different thing. It’s not anti-military, it’s anti-discrimination.
So it wasn’t “spin.” It was correcting the reporter’s views of events based on how and why the events actually transpired.
Call her a closet-case if you want. Say she’s hypocritical for not resigning instead of doing what her boss told her in arguing against DOMA. That’s all fine and those are reasonable points for debate. The thing with Harvard and the military isn’t quite so debatable.
Fitz
What is a “reporter”? I thought it was all blog-space now?
wannabegay2
ok, let’s scrutinize what the “gay mafia” and the democratic mafia has done (and i’m gay and a communist, so don’t accuse me of being biased rather than objective)
-when first the name elena kagan was brought in spotlight, Queerty, other gay blogs and major networks identified her as an open lesbian, proud to be a lesbian, with real chances of being the first open lesbian on the benches of the supreme court. two days later, when republicans started to attack this subject, no more lesbian around: kagan got back in the closet faster than the speed of light and now shes all hetero. i get this strategy, because theres lots of bigots out there, but just admit it!
-the same story with her resume: she’s being portrayed as this pro-republican pro-democrat, consensus person. she’s a crazy liberal and i hope she gets voted, because we need her!
Wy
Well in their defense the Obama campaign promised transparency. So far they’ve succeeded in this promise by being transparently manipulative of the media. It’s just semantics.
ousslander
In defending Doma while being in the closet does that not make her a self-loathing homsexual just like Rekkers and all the rest and sheould be brought down like them also
This question will probably disappear but would love to have some explain the distinction ?
concernedcitizen
this blog nor the adjunct post provide any relevant evidence that the obama administration has attempted to unduly influence or “rewrite” history as this blog suggests. The corresponding article written by Peter Beinart is slipshod and perfunctory at best. Further it is an assault on journalism and makes the assumption that journalists don’t have a mind or opinion of their own and can be easily influenced by this (or any) administration. This is a reckless supposition.
Consider the only flimsy “evidence” provided by Peter in “The Problem With Elena Kagan” he states as support for his haphazard theory that it was “Remarkable that the Times managed to track down that photo. Almost makes you wonder if they had help.” This is circumstantial and not PROOF of anything other than that they found a picture quickly. It suggests a leap of logic and reason that is most likely improbable, and alone is not proof of any tie between the administration and this article. Before cosigning on something perhaps this blog should critically analyze its sources and determine their merit!