NPR Censors Review of "Outrage"

In yet another example of how the mainstream media fails to do its job of reporting ALL the facts and then allowing readers to decide for them self, NPR - which is often better than a number of other news outlets - has censored a review of the new documentary, "Outrage," to remove the names of the closeted politicians (some of whom have already been exposed elsewhere as frauds and hypocrites). It's maddening that the media is selective in how it allows heterosexual frauds to be exposed yet applies a totally different standard to closet cases who vote anti-gay even as the seek out and solicit gay sex. What is particularly amazing is that those protected by NPR have been outed previously in various publications already. Michelangelo Signorile rightly takes NPR to task. Here are some highlights:

*

The opening of Outrage put much of the media into its usual "outing" conundrum simply because they've had their heads up their asses for years when it comes to reporting on the homosexuality of public figures. Some of the media finally got it, at least to a point, while others were hopelessly lost. The New York Times named the names, while the Washington Post refused and gave some ridiculous and brutally arrogant reasoning in an otherwise bizarrely laudatory review by Dan Zak:

*
"Outrage" comes down hardest on another prominent politician whose name we won't print here. Why? He has denied repeatedly that he is gay, and there has been no substantiated reports in mainstream media about any homosexual relationships or transgressions.

*

In other words: "Because the subject has claimed it's not true and because we in the mainstream media have refused to investigate this legitimate story -- even though all the sourcing might be out there and has been reported in that less-than-mainstream-new-media-thing-that-is-increasingly-read-by-more-people-than-our-dead-tree-news-which-is-losing-circulation-and-we-haven't-a-clue-why --- we're not going to report it now, even though this film is pretty damn good and makes a case for why we should!"

*

Don't you love how our media ushers in "privacy" these days only when it's about reporting on the very serious issue of duplicity of politicians regarding homosexuality? Or will a search not reveal that The Washington Post has reported every sordid detail about Britney Spears and what will happen if she "flakes out" again, or Lindsay Lohan's "liquid diet" rumors, not to mention Madonna's adoption problems and various other public figures' divorces, fights, weddings, pregnancies, boozing, lying, private celebrations, fighting, baby births, cheating, plastic surgeries, tax issues, designer duds, lavish parties and on and on?

*

By not discussing the names of those in the film, NPR is most certainly passing judgment on homosexuality, on the filmmaker and on the public figures involved -- deeming that, if they have secret gay lives, it is the most horrible thing imaginable. They are also deciding to suppress legitimate news because of that distaste and bias.

*

These are the questions that need to be answered, and they are indeed the very questions this Outrage raises. Let's hope the more of the media, having come far on this issue, takes up the debate.

*

As I have said before, once a closeted politician begins voting anti-gay on legislation, they need to be exposed if only to expose their hypocrisy and the fact that they obviously are not trust worthy. If they will lie about who they are, what else will they lie about?