Related tags:
politics + (5)
gay + (5)


Users that often use this tag:
aaron (2)

"Whatever else is going on, the liberal-left alliance has taken as big a hit as the conservative-fundamentalist alliance after the blame-America remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ... It may be [...] that the far left's bluff has been finally called ... For the first time in a very long while, many liberals are reassessing--quietly for the most part--their alliance with the anti-American, anticapitalist forces they have long appeased, ignored or supported." Andrew Sullivan in Thursday's Opinion Journal. Strong piece, but is he correct? I've seen a few people reassessing here and there, but not a lot, at least not yet.
posted by aaron on Oct 3, 2001 - 25 comments

Is this Andrew Sullivan's ass? This morning, Jim Romenesko made a questionable publishing decision. He ran a link to an article in last Friday's edition of the newspaper LGNY, in which Michelangelo Signorile makes a very serious allegation: That Andrew Sullivan has been advertising for "bareback" sex online (anal sex w/o condoms). Such actions on Sullivan's part would be seen by many as exceedingly hypocritical given his voluminous writings of a moral conservative bent and his "arrogance toward the ghettoized gay scene" (as Signorile puts it), if not downright dangerous given his HIV+ status.

If true, this brings up plenty of ideological and moral issues, which I'm sure will be discussed in this thread. But that's not why I'm bringing it up here. I'm posting because of the vaguely Kayceeish nature of the whole thing. If you look at Signorile's article, you'll see that all the evidence is circumstantial. Several people who Signorile really really trust say they answered the ads and Sullivan was the guy that showed up when they met. The photos in the ads look like what most people expect Sullivan's body to look like (minus his head, of course). Also, Sullivan hasn't responded to anyone's questions about this, and after all, if the accusations were false wouldn't Sullivan be loudly denying them (wink wink)?

Complicating the whole mess is Signorile's own journalistic history - he made his name during the late '80s-early '90s running gossipy columns outing famous people against their will - and that Romenesko decided to publicize this article in the first place, thus ensuring that every single person in the national media is fully aware of the allegations, true or not. Is this actual proof that Sullivan is guilty of barebacking, or is he being Borked (Kayceed?)? Should it have been publicized like this in the first place, since a mention in Romenesko is the best way to start up a classic pack journalism action short of running a front-page story in The New York Times? Will other media outlets jump on this now and sully Sullivan's reputation, whether the allegations are true or not?
posted by aaron on May 29, 2001 - 41 comments