Connect with us

Opinions

New York Times drops the ball in covering Biden

Time has come to end clickbait headlines and irrelevant polling

Published

on

The New York Times has been getting a lot of blowback as reported in CNN Reliable Sources. I was glad to know I was not the only one who thinks its reporting is stilted. There are two older men running for president, but according to the New York Times, you would think there is only one. 

But why is age the focus of the reporting at all? After last week, and the Super Tuesday results, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the candidates of their respective political parties. One of them will be president. We all know that none of the third-party candidates will win. Yes, they could possibly influence the outcome, but as we know from history, their influence, if any, won’t have them win, but could make a difference in the outcome between Trump and Biden. So that is a topic the Times could be writing about. Age is no longer news. One or the other of the older candidates, will be the president. 

So, the news should be about what they say, not how they say it. Though in his State of the Union speech Biden proved he could do both well. News is about the policies they support, their accomplishments, their goals, and vision, for the future. That should now be the news worth writing about in this campaign. The time has come to end clickbait headlines and irrelevant reporting. The real issues voters need to know about, and where each candidate stands on them, is what the New York Times should be writing about. It is also what any polling they conduct should be about.

With regard to the question on age in the recent Times/Sienna poll, Jeff Jarvis, the Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism Innovation at the CUNY Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, posted on Threads, “That they even asked this question is evidence of the bias — the agenda — in their poll. Who made age an ‘issue’? The credulous Times falling into the right-wing’s projection. This is not journalism. Shameful.” 

If the Times wants to poll, why not ask people how they feel about Roe v. Wade? Their thoughts on IVF? Should the United States support NATO; should we support Ukraine, and Israel? Should the border be closed, or should we just curtail immigration? Should immigrants be allowed to work? Should the LGBTQ community have full rights? Should there be more or less government oversight of the airlines? Should there be more or less government interference in our environment? Should climate change be a focus of the next president? Should the government forgive student loans; should community college be free? Should the United States participate in UN human rights programs? There are an abundance of real issues on which the candidates either agree, or disagree, and their positions on them are very clear. That is what the Times should be writing about, and should poll on, if they insist on doing polls. That is what is important. 

The New York Times has said it reports, ā€œall the news that’s fit to print.ā€ Maybe they had better rethink what that means, or start reporting the news that makes a difference. The millions of Americans who belong to a political party have had their chance to determine who they want to represent them. The two major parties will have conventions this summer to formally anoint those candidates. It is not up to the New York Times to tell them why they are wrong, but to tell all the people what those candidates’ positions are on the important issues of the day. 

The Times is not the only paper with skewed reporting. The Washington Post does that as well, and surely there are others. Cable news does it. They have all given up reporting on facts that matter, rather blathering on about their opinions. On Super Tuesday, the cable show hosts talked ad nauseam about age in relation to Biden, without one mention of a real issue. There was a time when three TV networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, seemed to report the news without a specific bias, and let the American people make up their own minds about what they thought. In any event, I hope The New York Times takes to heart all the criticism it is getting, and begins to report on this upcoming presidential election, a crucial one, in a much more relevant way.Ā 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

A conversation about queers and class

As a barback, I see our community’s elitism up close

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

In the bar, on the way to its now-Instafamous bathrooms, there’s a sign that reads, ā€œqueer & trans liberation means economic justice for all.ā€ 

I remember seeing that sign the first week the bar opened, and ever since I often find myself reflecting on that message. I stand fully in agreement. That’s why laws protecting queers in the workplace are essential, for far too often we are targeted otherwise. It’s also why I love working at the bar, since it provides opportunities for queers from all over the spectrum to earn a living. At a time when I gave myself space to pursue art, it was the bar that enabled me to do so. 

It’s one thing to support the LGBTQ community in spirit, but that spirit means jack in a capitalist society if viable economic opportunities don’t exist. Speaking of jack, there’s a fellow barback named Jack who I fangirl over often. Jack is a decade younger than me, but damn I wish I had his sex appeal at his age (or any age, for that matter). He also has a mustache that easily puts mine to shame. 

Jack not only agrees but took things one step further. ā€œEconomic inequality IS a queer issue,ā€ he told me, ā€œespecially as we move into the most uncertain period of American politics I have ever lived through, it is apparent our identity is now a fireable offense.ā€ 

Uncertain is right. We’re fresh off the heels of a trade bonanza, one caused for literally no reason by our current commander in chief. Yet there emerged a strange division when discussing the trade war’s ā€œunintendedā€ consequences. For working class comrades like Jack and myself, we’re stressed about increasing prices in an already tough economy. But the wealthier echelons of our country had something else on their mind: the spiraling stock market. This alone highlights the story of our economic divide, where the same event produces two separate concerns for two distinct classes.  

This is not to say the stock market is not important, but sometimes the media forget many Americans don’t own stock at all, including a vast majority of people between 18 and 29. In fact, according to Axios, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own 93 percent of the entire stock market, with the richest 1 percent holding $25 trillion — that’s right, trillion with a ā€œtā€ — in market value. So, when the president reversed course on trade, it was less about high prices hurting everyday Americans and more about the dent created in the wealth of the wealthiest. And I’ll admit: that bothers me a lot. 

If there is any takeaway from Trump’s trade war, it should be this: Economic inequality is the highest it has been in decades and, if left unchecked, will destroy the fabric of our country. We are steadily moving toward oligarchy status—if we’re not there already, that is—and it seems to grow worse with each passing year and administration. But in a city of D.C. gays who often skew corporate, I wonder: Are we all on the same page here? 

After becoming a barback, I have my doubts. From questions about what else I do, to comments encouraging me to work hard so that I can be a bartender one day, I quickly learned the gay world is not too fond of barbacking. Barebacking, sure, but not barbacking. And hey, I get it—we’re not the alcohol hookup at the bar. Still, we are part of the service industry, and while some people are incredibly kind, you’d be surprised at how many turn up their noses at us, too. 

Recently, I’ve come to realize my class defines me as much as my orientation does, if not more. Naturally, when you come from a rough neck of the woods like I do, it’s easy to feel out of place in a flashy city like D.C., which Jack noticed, too. ā€œAnyone from a working class background could testify to that,ā€ he said. ā€œI don’t really know anyone from true upper class backgrounds, but I’d imagine their experience is one that leans into assimilation.ā€

Assimilation is a key word here, for admittedly gays love to play with the elite. Often, we don’t have children, meaning more money for the finer things in life, but that also means we may not think about future generations much, either. I’ve written before that our insecurity growing up has us ready to show the world just how powerful gays can be—power that comes in trips to Coachella and Puerto Vallarta, or basking in the lavish houses and toys we own. There’s already a joke that gays run the government, and corporate gays kick ass at their jobs as well. So, given the choice between fighting inequality and keeping a high-paying job, I must admit I have a hard time seeing where D.C. gays stand. 

Admittedly, it worked out in our favor before, given that many corporations catered to our economic prowess over the years. But look at what’s happening now: Many corporations have kicked us to the curb. Protections are being stripped from queers, particularly for our trans brothers and sisters. Law firms are bowing down to Trump, offering hundreds of millions in legal fees just for their bottom line. All of this will hurt both queers and the working class in the long run, so again I ask: Corporate gays, where do you stand? Because if you remain complicit, that’s bad news for us all. 

I don’t want to sound accusatory, and I hate being a doomsday type, so allow me to end this on a better note. Strength is not about celebrating when times are good. Arguably, true strength emerges when times get tough. These are tough times, my friends, but that also makes now the perfect opportunity to show the world just how strong we are. 

At a time when the world is pressuring us to turn our backs on each other, we must defy them to show up when it counts. Corporate gays—now more than ever, at a time when the economy is turning its back on queers, we need you. We need you to stand up for the queer community. We need you to make sure no one gets left behind. We need you to show up for us, so that we can show up for you, too. 

Ten years ago, the economy didn’t turn queer out of nowhere. The economy turned queer because we made it turn queer. 

And if we did it once, surely we can do it again. 


Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.

Continue Reading

Opinions

On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance

Argentine-born pontiff died on Monday

Published

on

A picture of Pope Francis inside St. Matthew's Cathedral in D.C. on April 21, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

ā€œGood Fridayā€ set the stage for Saturday’s anti-Trump/MAGA ā€œHands Offā€ protests serving as a timely lead-in to binge-watching Alex Gibney’s two-part HBO political documentary, ā€œThe Dark Money Gameā€ on Easter Sunday. In ā€œWealth of the Wicked,ā€ nefarious Opus Dei ā€”Svengali Leonard Leo strategically seduces politically disappointed Catholic Federalist Society billionaires into subsidizing a scheme to ‘pipeline’ malleable conservative judges to take over the Supreme Court and overturn reproductive rights.

A key victory for ā€œOperation Higher Courtā€ came in 2010 when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v Federal ElecĀ­tion CommisĀ­sion, that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free political speech rights as individuals — as long as their unlimited cash donations go to 501 c(4)’s or Super PAC slush funds and not directly to candidates.  Twelve years later, in 2022, they got their payoff with the overturning of Roe v Wade by Leo-promoted Catholic justices.

But Leo’s political conniving is not the only exploitation of moral corruption. The documentary exposes conservative Christians too.

Gibney’s anti-hero is a former rabid anti-abortion lobbyist named Rev. Robert Schenck. He tells of turning to a fellow conservative in Cleveland, Ohio after Trump won the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and asking: ā€œAre we really going to do this? We’re going to choose this man who’s inimical to everything we believe?ā€ The other evangelical replied: ā€œI don’t care how bad he is. He’s going to get us the court we need.ā€™ā€

Schenck explains the unholy alliance between Christian conservatives and Big Business. ā€œWhenever you talked about government regulation, the argument was eventually — ā€˜these same characters who control my business are going to start trying to control your church. So, it’s in your best interests that we defang this monster’ — and that brought a lot of religious conservatives over.ā€

And there’s this: ā€œWe have a little aphorism built on a Bible verse: ā€˜The wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous.’ So, yeah, let’s baptize the billionaires’ money. We can do that ā€” and it eventually brought together this alliance.ā€

Schenck later reveals an intense epiphany that resulted in regret for how much harm he caused. Not so for Leo.

This is an excerpt from Gareth Gore’s comprehensive book Opus, for Rolling Stone Magazine:

ā€œDURING THE DONALD TRUMP YEARS, conservatives — led by Leonard Leo — took control of the Supreme Court … At one Federalist Society event, his good friend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas jokingly referred to Leo as the third most powerful man in the world, presumably behind the pope and the president of the United States.ā€

On Monday morning, Pope Francis died. I liked this pope, compared to the others. I covered Creating Change during the AIDS crisis when author Paul Monette delivered his brilliant, scathing denouncement of the Catholic Church, then unexpectedly ripped up a portrait of Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI was just crotchety cruel. But Pope Francis — named for St. Francis of Assisi — had that big smile and genuinely seemed to care about migrants, the vulnerable and the marginalized ā€” like us. He even used the word ‘gay’ instead of ‘homosexual.’

Pope Francis’s reply to a question about a Vatican ā€œgay lobbyā€ on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome made global news. ā€œIf a person is gay and seeks God and has good will,ā€ he said in 2013. ā€œWho am I to judge? We shouldn’t marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society.”

What did this mean? Welcoming inclusion into a family that officially considers us ‘intrinsically disordered?’

And then there was Pope Francis’s interaction with Juan Carlos Cruz — a whistleblower in Chile’s clerical sex abuse scandal.

“He said, ‘Look Juan Carlos, the pope loves you this way. God made you like this and he loves you,'” Cruz told The Associated Press.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church Catechism affirmed, “this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

Ergo, a behavioral choice.

Therein lies the problem.

LGBTQ people are seen largely as individuals with sinful same sex sexual ‘inclinations.’ So when the pontiff touted ‘the equal dignity of every human being,’ and rebuked Vice President JD Vance with the ‘Good Samaritan’ parable, whereby love ā€œbuilds a fraternity open to all, without exceptionā€ — we are still the exception.

Francis was all also human ā€” having to apologize at one point for using a gay slur. But what of the bigger things like, did he know about the Opus Dei takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court when he chastised Vance about deporting migrants? Did he know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people last October, who allege they were victims of clergy sexual abuse? With a previous payment of $740 million, the total settlement payout will be more than $1.5 billion dollars. Is Leo chipping in to replenish that?

And it’s not over. Earlier this month, Downey Catholic priest Jaime Arriaga, 41, was charged with several counts of child sexual abuse which allegedly happened when he was serving as a transitional deacon at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.

Longtime U.K LGBTQ+ activist Peter Tatchell ā€” who’s campaigned against Catholic homophobia for 58 years — says Pope Francis’ legacy is complicated.  

ā€œI extend my condolences to Catholics worldwide on the passing of Pope Francis. While we often disagreed on issues of LGBTQ rights, I acknowledge his more compassionate tone towards sexual minorities. His recent moves to allow blessings for same-sex couples, albeit with limitations, signaled a small but significant shift in Church doctrine,ā€ Tatchell said in a statement.

ā€œHowever, for millions of LGBT+ people globally, the Catholic Church remains a force for discrimination and suffering. Under his leadership, the Vatican continued to oppose same-sex marriage and trans rights. Catholic bishops lobbied against the decriminalization of homosexuality in many parts of the world. The Vatican still upholds the homophobic edicts of the Catechism, which denounces the sexual expression of same-sex love as a ā€˜grave depravity’ and ā€˜intrinsically disordered.’ Francis’s legacy is, therefore, a mixed one — offering some progress, but leaving deep-rooted inequalities largely intact.

ā€œThe struggle for LGBT+ equalityĀ against a homophobicĀ church must continue. We urge the next Pope to go further — to end the church’s support for discrimination, both within the faith and in the widerĀ society.ā€

Continue Reading

Opinions

Brad’s Story: An Unexpected Diagnosis

From Boston Qualifier to Heart Transplant Survivor

Published

on

Brad Tennis (left) with his husband Drew Roberts.

Brad Tennis loves running. For years, the meditative rhythm of his feet on pavement brought him peace like nothing else could. And it turns out, he was quite good at running as he  even qualified for the Boston Marathon. But while Brad was chasing his goals, unbeknownst to him, his heart was slowly deteriorating.

In November 2018, out of the blue, Brad was diagnosed with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or ARVC, a rare heart condition that causes the heart muscle to break down over time. ARVC increases the risk of abnormal heartbeats and chance of sudden cardiac death. Brad was fitted with an internal defibrillator and told he could no longer run. Doctors warned him that endurance exercise would only accelerate the disease.

After processing the news of this condition, Brad felt like himself for a while. But in 2020, he started experiencing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) shocks to halt life threatening arrhythmias. Despite numerous surgical and medical interventions, the shocks began to get more frequent. By 2023, the toll of the disease, the ICD shocks and the treatments led to progressing heart failure. By the end of 2023, he was feeling breathless on stairs, having trouble playing physically with his children and finding it difficult to keep up at work. His world was shrinking.

In February 2024, Brad started the process with Johns Hopkins Hospital to be listed for a heart transplant. A couple of weeks later, he had another shock, more testing and then a doctor put him on ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), a life support machine that is used when a person’s heart is failing. Soon after, he got the news of a lifetime: ā€œThere’s a heart available and today is the day!ā€

The organ transplant marked the beginning of a new journey. Brad focused on recovery — building up his strength, learning his new body and adjusting to life with a new heart. Last summer, he was cleared to exercise again and is enjoying playing with his kids — something he deeply missed.

“I would never say I’m back to feeling normal. I’m always going to have to carefully manage my stress and my activities to protect my health and my new heart,ā€ said Brad. ā€œBut the transplant was lifesaving and means that I will be there to build a life with my husband and my kids.”

Brad is still moving forward. He and his family are enjoying life again — and he’s even bought a new pair of sneakers with the hope that he’ll be able to return to running regularly.

ā€œOrgan donation and transplant have reopened doors that I had thought were closed forever,ā€ Brad shares. ā€œIt’s given me the chance to be present and have a full, happy life with my husband, son and daughter.ā€

His husband, Drew, adds, ā€œEvery day, I’m reminded of Brad’s strength, resilience and bravery.ā€

Brad doesn’t take this lifesaving gift for granted and is grateful to his organ donor hero. ā€œI think it’s an amazing thing — to give life and give hope. Even in tragedy, someone gave me a gift… a second chance. Everyone can register to be a donor and save lives like Brad’s at infinitelegacy.org. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular