They pretty much cover the whole deal today in the NY Post regarding Sullivan's BareBack
ads on the internet. They also mention he never returned calls seeking comment.

Here's my question: Why has this clown not responded to what have to be at this point a zillion request's for comment? hmmmm.

Today's New York Post gossip column, Page Six, reported it had called Andrew Sullivan for his comments about the LGNY story written by Michaelangelo Signorile. According to the New York Post, Andrew Sullivan has not responded to them or LGNY which published Signorile's story.

The problem here is twofold:

1. The Signorile story about Andrew Sullivan's alledged promiscuous hypocrisy has no legs to sustain its public interest.

2. Signorile's credibility.

Signorile's credibility is suspect. Signorile has always been very critical of Andrew Sullivan's conservative views. In the LGNY expose written by Signorile, Michaelangelo blasts Sullivan as a promiscuous hypocrite. Signorile makes the unsubstantiated and unverified claim that Sullivan was using an AOL account with links to backbacking websites advertising he was seeking sexual contact with other men. According to Signorile, the alledged AOL account name with the backbacking web links belonged to Sullivan. Signorile then went on to say that his sources for the information were two anonymous and confidential gay men who verified the AOL account belonged to Andrew Sullivan.

The problem with Signorile's expose in LGNY is that the story has no credibility. Signorile has relied on the anonimity of confidential sources whose credibility cannot be verified without exposing those sources to public scrutiny and examination. Signorile expects the reader of his expose to accept his story as truth without proof of his confidential sources' assertions.

A fair and honest person must ask themselves why any public figure must prove unsubstantiated allegations made by someone else. Isn't the burden of proof entirely on the shoulders of Michaelangelo Signorile?

I would strongly suggest that allegations of Sullivan's promiscuous hypocrisy made by Signorile should be backed up by substantiated proof. Confidential and anonymous sources do not meet the high standard of proof unless there is other independent verification of the facts to buttress his confidential sources.

At best, Signorile expose is entertaining. At it's worse, an example of yellow journalism to assassinate Sullivan's character even if his views are conservative. It ought to be beneath us to give license to the practice of yellow journalism as a way to silence prominent gay conservative writers -- no matter what ideological cause we subscribe to.

Thanks for posting that, Brooklyn.

Nice try, Sun.

The Signorile sources are not anonymous except that they aren't identified to readers. They are confidential, meaning that they have been verified by the author and can be verified by editors who run news of the story. Reliance on confidential sources is how Watergate (like Clintongate) was reported from the start. Ditto for countless other stories. This simple distinction between professional ethics regulating the use of anonymous versus confidential sources continues to elude or be "mysteriously" ignored by critics in this case. To try to argue that the story isn't credible because the sources aren't identified is to also discredit a huge percentage of what is reported every day.

Critics are trying in their desperation, as has been repeatedly pointed out to them, to apply evidentiary standards to a news story, as if the subject of the story were being formally accused of a crime. This is not a crime story (and even if it were, confidential sources would still be acceptable). Ironically, for the most part, these same people -- including Andrew Sullivan -- did NOT remain quiet, suspending judgement until Monica's cum-stained dress was produced. Neither did most Americans remain neutral until the missing tapes convicted Nixon.

Don't try to make a news story a court case. It ain't. Sullivan does have recourse in the courts if he wants to pursue it, however. He will have to prove malice, that the allegations aren't true and that they are not appropriately contextual.

If you choose not to believe the story because the sources aren't identified, I hope you make that a consistent practice. Otherwise, it would appear you are guilty of the same kind of political agendas of which you accuse Sullivan's critics.

Jake, are you archiving these discussions? The deletion here is certainly part of the ongoing treatment of the Sullivan story.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

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 ]

Not since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy has the drive to discredit so overridden every other consideration. Lies out of whole cloth are not uncommon in journalism and strawmen, like anonymous confidential sources, dot the landscape.

Like straw men, anonymous sources need to be carefully examined not only in themselves, but also against what purpose they serve. Signorile's straw men serve the purpose to discredit Andrew Sullivan. Without vetting the confidential sources upon which Signorile has based his allegations of Sullivan's promiscuous sins, we are once again entertained by Signorile's viewpoint of the gay ghetto.

Despite the significant flaws of Signorile's approach to serious journalism, we are reminded again Signorile is fun to read. But, don't take him too seriously even if his villian is Conservative Andrew Sullivan.

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

there is only one horndogg, and he is me. I have enough balls on my profile to list where I live, my name,my e-mail address, how about yourself and the rest of your split personalities!






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

Horndogg ~

Under the rules for the message board, defamatory remarks are not permitted. Right?

Guyncol's (Mystic Chocolate) and Black references are thinly-veiled racial remarks about my African-American ethnicity.

I would appreciate it if you deleted the thinly-veiled racist references from his posting. Thank you.

To summarize Guyncol's latest flaming efforts, we have the following:

1. Guyncol calls the Moderator (Horndogg) a troll.

2. Guyncol uses defamatory racist remarks.

3. Guyncol defines a troll as:

"a troll in a discussion board is usually not interested in posting constructive information or commentary and is usually anything but friendly or well intentioned. Trolls craft and post messages into discussion forums as 'bait' for the express purpose of upsetting everyone else and provoking a flame war."

But, he doesn't stop there. He likes to use racist remarks that clearly violate the posting rules. And, to top his latest flaming effort, he deliberately calls the moderator a troll.

I think it is clearly evident that Guyncol is deliberately daring the moderator to edit or delete his postings by flaming on this board again.

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

"Like straw men, anonymous sources need to be carefully examined not only in themselves, but also against what purpose they serve. Signorile's straw men serve the purpose to discredit Andrew Sullivan. "

Since you apparently suffer short-term memory loss, as well as multiple screen name pesonality disorder, I'll repeat:

Signorile's sources are not anonymous. They are confidential. Sun's repeated effort to conflate "anonymous" and "confidential," despite explanations of the difference (and citations of historic cases), demonstrates, as I said, that he is guilty of exactly what he's accusing Signorile:

Veiling a political agenda to discredit someone through a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Now set your barcalounger in an upright position, Sunnyboy, send the peekapoo outside to shit under the plastic birdbath and concentrate real hard on this. Try moving your lips along with mine: Confidential sources are not anonymous sources. Under usual rules of professional ethics, the reporter has to be willing to verify his sources to the editor. There is NO reason to think anything is different in this case. Got it?

Good boy! Now go read some more stuff on freerepulic.com you can rewrite to post here.

You remember that MamoVerga called the allegations about Andrew Sullivan bogus. You've seen Stunny's denials.

Sorry to ruin your party, boys. Andy's fessed up on his web site:

"It is true that I had an AOL screenname/profile for meeting other gay men. It is true that I posted an ad some time ago on a site for other gay men devoted to unprotected sex."

This admission is of course buried at the bottom of his screed, the rest of which is a predictable attack on "anonymous" sources and Signorile, as well as an argument about his right to bareback other positive men. He assures us he is neither a hypocrite nor a moralizer. I especially love his attack on the anonymous sources, yet rather than deny the material he says he has "no recollection" of meeting anyone. Uh huh.

But the bottom line is that he's admitted his behavior.

Hope y'all read the wonderful mediawhoresonline.com now and then.

From MediaWhores.com :
Andrew Sullivan addresses rumors

Andrew Sullivan on President Clinton in his most recent column (5/27):

Anybody who thinks he has changed is fooling himself. These patterns of behaviour are driven so deep they will almost never change. In this sense, Clinton is once again a sex scandal waiting to happen. And the scariest thing is that he barely knows it.

Andy on the rumors about himself (AndrewSullivan.com, 5/30):

I ignored them as I have learned to ignore most such threats over the years. To answer them is to give legitimacy to the very premises of their argument: that the most intensely personal details of someone's private life can and should be used for political purposes.

Andy on Clinton (5/27):

Witness what happened in Oslo after Clinton gave his speech two weeks ago. Rather than retiring to bed, Clinton went out to dinner with some students at a branch of TGI Friday, the American restaurant chain. A 19-year-old girl presented him with a tulip. Clinton gave her a hug. "You're too beautiful to only get a hug," he told her.

Andy on Andy (5/30):

What, after all, was McCarthyism? In the history books, it is described as a method of political intimidation where someone is accused of something allegedly shameful, not told who his accusers are, and forced to respond.

Andy on what journalism has become:

This morning, the New York Post has run a lead item, after a perfunctory phone call to ask me if there was any truth to the story. This is what journalism now is.

Is "This" the same "This" Andy praised as when he defended Drudge as cutting edge journalism just weeks ago, despite Drudge's vicious smears against Sidney Blumenthal?

]

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

Horndogg ~

You have my respect and admiration for doing the right thing. I just noticed the deletion of the offensive remarks.

THANK YOU !

It occured to me a very long time ago that maybe the real story is not about Andrew Sullivan.

Maybe, just maybe, the real story or sub-textis Sexual McCarthyism in the gay mainstream of America.

Is Andrew Sullivan the story plot or is Andrew Sullivan being used to generate increased social consciousness about how Sexual McCarthyism has crept into gay politics as it has in mainstream American politics?

Is the issue Andrew Sullivan's alledged promiscuous hypocrisy? If distortions and character assassination were going to stop Andrew Sullivan, he would have stopped writing a long time ago.

Or, is the real issue whether the new sexual McCarthyism creates an atmosphere in which only a handful of people dare to question publicly the prevailing vision and attitudes within Gay America?

If it succeeds in discrediting ideas and facts it cannot answer, in intimidating others into silence, then the whole attempt to resolve urgent social issues will have to be abandoned to those with fashionable cliches and political cant -- what has been aptly called "Whitespeak".