Radar media critic Charles Kaiser on "don't ask, don't tell," and the Republicans' dodgy debate

ASKING AND TELLING Keith Kerr

Last week, Keith Kerr, a retired brigadier general with 42 years of service (who also happens to be gay), asked a perfectly reasonable question at the Republicans' YouTube debate: "I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"

Mitt Romney, the man who's never met a conviction he couldn't jettison to pander to right-wing Republican primary voters, said he no longer looked forward to a time when gays and lesbians could serve "openly and honestly" as he did in 1994, because now "we're in the middle of a war." California congressman Duncan Hunter said this isn't like Britain or Israel—where gays have served openly for years without causing a problem—this is America, where most soldiers are "conservatives with Judeo-Christian values" who shouldn't be forced to work in a "small, tight unit" (indeed!) because it would go against their "principles" (of bigotry).

Mike Huckabee fell back on the old "unit cohesion" bugaboo, and John McCain said he was certain that the "present policy is working" and "we have the best military in history"—so why would you want to screw that up with a lot of gay people serving openly and honestly? Needless to say, as General Kerr himself pointed out, none of the candidates had actually answered his question. Nevertheless, when the debate was over, Bill Bennett, that great expert on journalistic ethics, seized the moment to point out that the general was part of Hillary Clinton's gay advisory board—and therefore his question was completely out of order. You remember Bill Bennett—that paragon of virtue whose gambling addiction has cost him somewhere between $500,000 and $8 million, but who, naturally, remains a highly sought-after conservative commentator on important cable networks everywhere.

Bennett's gambit led to several idiotic decisions. First, CNN decided it was so terrible to have allowed a Clinton supporter to ask a question that, when the debate was rebroadcast, the whole exchange was expunged—without any notice to the viewers. Then, New York Times television writer Jacques Steinberg devoted a whole piece to this appalling breach of journalistic ethics (the question-asking, not its expunging—Steinberg missed the censorship part) and Jon Klein, the president of CNN's domestic networks, promised to redouble his network's efforts to vet the campaign affiliations of questioners at open-forum debates.

The lone island of sanity in this sea of stupidity was provided by the estimable Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for the Washington Post. Writing in a Post blog, The Trail, Baker managed to ask the only questions that actually mattered: "Why should candidates be shielded from being asked questions by people who don't necessarily agree with them? Isn't that what a 'town hall' is supposed to be all about? Shouldn't a future president be tough enough to face dissent? Won't a future president be president of all the people? In the old days, when candidates had real town halls that weren't moderated by television stars, real voters could show up and ask questions even of candidates they didn't support. Somehow the assumption now seems to be that Republicans should only face questions from Republicans and, presumably then, Democrats should only face questions from Democrats. But at the CNN/YouTube debate featuring Democrats earlier this year, there were questions from obviously conservative voters—one from a gun rights advocate comes to mind—and why should they not have to explain to a gun owner why they support restrictions on their ownership?" Bravo, Peter.

The same day as Steinberg's piece, the Times ran another article, which revealed that 28 retired generals and admirals had signed a letter urging Congress to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The retired officers estimated that 65,000 gays and lesbians are currently serving in the military, and there are approximately one million gay veterans.

The last time the New York Times wrote about this subject at length, I sent an e-mail to five of its top editors (at least one of whom happens to be gay), pointing out that although the article in question had appeared on the front page—and had therefore been vetted by at least 10 editors—it still managed to omit virtually every relevant fact about this issue. Last week's piece about the generals and admirals, written by Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy, did exactly the same thing. For the record, here are some of the facts they might have thought to include:

• At least 58 Arab translators have been thrown out of the military because they are gay.

• Nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. (Zogby International & Michael D. Palm Center 2006 study)

• One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay. More than 55 percent of the troops who know a gay colleague said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well-known by others. (Zogby International)

• All published Pentagon studies, including the 1993 Rand Report, conclude that there should be no special restrictions on service by gay personnel.

• Twenty-four other nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel, already allow open service by gays and lesbians, and none of the 24 report morale or recruitment problems. Nine nations allowing open service have fought alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, 12 nations allowing open service fought alongside U.S. troops in Operation Enduring Freedom.

During the past 20 years, the New York Times has gone from the worst to the best place for a gay reporter to work. Why nearly all of its stories on gay subjects remain relentlessly unsophisticated is an enduring mystery.

Winner: Paul Steiger, who spent 16 years as the brilliant editor of the Wall Street Journal, for founding Pro Publica, which will spend $10 million a year on original investigative reporting, to be shared with major print and broadcast outlets. At last week's opening of New York University's spectacular new space for its journalism school, Steiger explained his motivation:

"It is true that the number and variety of publishing platforms is exploding in the Internet age. But very few of these entities are engaged in original reporting. ... We face a situation in which sources of opinion are proliferating, but sources of facts on which those opinions are based are shrinking. ... I sometimes imagine that we are headed for an America in which the Associated Press becomes the sole source of news for a nation of 300 million bloggers. I'm a huge admirer of the AP, and I'm married to a blogger, but that's not a country I want to live in.

Sinner: Joe Klein, for falsely reporting in Time that House Democrats had supported a bill that would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Glenn Greenwald excoriated Klein for not reading the bill, which specifies: "IN GENERAL—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States."

Greenwald contended this is what Klein should have written:

"Last week, House Democrats passed a bill that allows the government to eavesdrop on foreigners outside of the U.S., but requires court approval to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens inside the U.S. But GOP operatives/politicians have spent the week telling reporters that the bill does the opposite, falsely claiming that it gives the same rights to terrorists that it gives to U.S. citizens."

Klein made five attempts to correct himself, one of which included this gem: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right."

Hit: As Mike Huckabee surges into the lead in Iowa, time for a reality check from Arkansas newspaper editor Max Brantley. According to Brantley, Huckabee could be a real blessing—for the Democrats.

Miss: Charles Krauthammer's utterly false column contending that "embryonic stem cell debate is over" because "nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver." The piece combines all of Krauthammer's signature qualities, including an ideological rigidity that always exceeds his grasp of actual facts.

Hit: Susan L. Solomon and Zach W. Hall's piece on the Huffington Post about stem cells, which explains that the recent, much-ballyhooed discovery does not yet have any practical application, because this new kind of stem cell was "created using genes and retroviruses that can cause cancer in humans." Solomon is the founder and CEO of the New York Stem Cell Foundation; Hall is a former president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Unlike Krauthammer, they actually understand the science they're writing about.

Hit: Another column by Alan I. Leshner and James A. Thomson. Thomson was apparently so offended by the misuse of his words by Krauthammer, he got the Washington Post to allow him to respond on the op-ed page. Among other things, the authors point out that the new breakthrough "that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research."

Hit: James Fallow's blog explaining that, despite what you may have read suggesting that the president's Thanksgiving plan to ease air traffic congestion might have done some good, according to Fallows, it did absolutely nothing. Inexplicably accurate Fox News moment: Through some producer's horrendous blunder, Fox & Friends actually aired an interview with aviation expert Mike Boyd, who said exactly the same thing as Fallows. The president was obviously reading from a crib sheet, and he was "really embarrassing," Boyd said.

Hit: Salon's well-argued point/counterpoint opinion pieces here and here about the race debate. Gary Kamiya's argument—that race is so 20th century—doesn't hold up against James Hannaham's more reasoned piece, which points out that as long as blacks are isolated by class and race, talking about "the end race" is absurd.

Hit: Score One for Howie: The Washington Post's media writer Howard Kurtz agrees with Frank Rich and many many others that the Post bungled its page one story headlined "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The story should have said the rumors are flatly false; instead it merely noted that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, then repeated many of the idiotic rumors.

Hit: They all know each other: The Idaho Statesmen finds four more men, including Ted-Haggard-aging-boy-toy Mike Jones, who say they've had sex with Senator Larry Craig. Extra bonus feature: eleven audio clips featuring "explicit descriptions of sex not appropriate for children and listeners who find such content offensive." Caveat: FCP couldn't actually get any of the clips to play on his computer. Bonus Xmas pick: The Larry Craig Action Doll which says "I am not gay." From the www.stupid.com site: "Bad News: We ran out of the Larry Craig Action Figures. ( yeah, we can't believe it either. Good News: More will be arriving in just a few days."

Déja vu or Déja lu: The New York Times ran a fascinating Page One story about how fertilizer subsidies are producing bumper crops in Malawi, contrary to the expectations of Western experts. But readers of the Toronto Globe and Mail of last October 12 remembered a strikingly similar piece on the same subject.

ABC's This Week featured a genuine leftie (Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel) speaking actual truth: vanden Heuvel said Giuliani wouldn't be Bush on steroids if he were elected president—"He would be a cross between Cheney and Nixon!"

	Meet the Press (NBC–Russert)	Face the Nation (CBS–Schieffer)	This Week (ABC–Stephanopoulos)
White Men	6	4	13
White Women	1	0	4
Black Men	1	0	0
Black Women	1	0	0
Gay People	0	0	0

Research assistance: Thomas Rogers, Richard Vanderford

Seen Something? E-mail to alert me to anything you see that warrants high praise or high dudgeon.

---

Charles Kaiser is the author of The Gay Metropolis and 1968 in America. He has been media editor for Newsweek, a member of the metro staff of the New York Times, and a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, where he covered the press and book publishing. He has also written for Vanity Fair, The Los Angeles Times, New York, The Washington Post, The New York Observer, Rolling Stone, Details, Interview, The Advocate, Vogue, and Salon. He has taught journalism at Columbia and Princeton. To find out more, visit charleskaiser.com.