Several important issues have been raised. Here are my own comments.

The long pole in Signorile's story is credibililty. Specifically, Signorile's credibility rests on anonymous sources. Those sources must be carefully examined for their veracity and credibility too. Shielding those anonymous sources from public examination without independent verification leaves us to rely solely upon Signorile's character and reliability to tell the truth. The problem I have with Signorile's anonymous sources is they have not had their bonifides vetted as credible sources.

The other issue is the burden of proof raised in the context of journalism. If we lived in a totalitarian society, the burden of proof would rest squarely on Sullivan's shoulders to disprove any allegations made against him. We don't live in a totalitarian society, although some people seem predisposed to that kind of society and thinking.

The simple fact of the matter is that Andrew Sullivan is not obligated to shoulder the burden of proof to disprove any allegations made against him. The underlying principle here should be obvious to everyone, especially those of us in the gay community.

I don't subscribe to Sullivan's conservative viewpoints, but I do embrace the principle of fair treatment and applying that standard equally to everyone regardless of their visibility in our community. Shame on those people who would pervert professional ethical standards to silence a person whose political viewpoint has ruffled a few feathers of a different bird.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: EbonyMagic ]