[dayglored]

>> "They don't seem to be emphasizing the homosexual nature of this case."

> Of course not!

Ummm, hello? Right at the top of the story, it said: "...the man, armed with a handgun, held two other men hostage... They may have been his former lovers..."

I don't know about you, but that tipped me off right away that these guys were all gays.

Or do you need pictures to make the situation clear? I for one can do without pictures in this case.

[ClearCase_guy]

Or do you need pictures to make the situation clear?

I don't need pictures. But you should consider this: Nowadays people use computer networks for their research. Whether it be LexisNexis or Google, what you find is determined by the search terms you use.

"Gee, I remember this case, there was this gay guy, I think he took his boyfriend hostage and ended up super-gluing him. Something like that ... let's see if we can find it ...

Search term: (homosexual or gay) and superglue and kidnapping

Result: this never happened.

If you need it plainer: journalists leave "homosexual" out of stories that are supposed to disappear and not show up in future searches.