Idaho reporter in the spotlight

Idaho Statesman reporter Dan Popkey is all over the news this week, following publication of his long-awaited outing piece on Sen. Larry Craig. Roll Call beat the Idaho paper to the punch with its report earlier this week on Craig’s arrest and guilty plea stemming from the now infamous restroom incident. But Popkey had spent months investigating the rumors of Craig’s homosexuality, which date back to at least 1982. In December, Popkey visited me at my Blade office in D.C. to ask whether I knew anything about Craig’s sexual orientation.

We spent about an hour talking about his assignment, which clearly made him uncomfortable. Here is an account I wrote about our encounter that was published in the Blade in December 2006:

“JUST LAST WEEK, I was witness to yet another example of the media’s pathetic squeamishness on the topic [of sexual orientation]. A reporter from the Idaho Statesman, now part of the large McClatchy chain of newspapers, e-mailed me to ask for a few minutes of my time. He sat down in my office, visibly nervous, and explained that his editor had sent him to Washington to investigate rumors that U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is gay.

“Those rumors have been widely circulated both online — thanks to the blogging of Michael Rogers — and in print. Craig’s office even issued an official denial of the gay rumors, which the Blade reported last month.

“But even an official statement from Craig’s office wasn’t enough for the Statesman to report the story. And so it sent a reporter to investigate in the big city.

“His approach? To troll D.C. gay bars, hand out glossy color photos of Craig and ask if patrons had seen him around, as if he were a missing person or a criminal.

“Incredibly, when I asked where the reporter was headed after leaving my office, he said he was off to cruise the Union Station men’s room, where unidentified “sources” claim they had picked up Craig. He had more glossy photos at the ready. Imagine relieving yourself in a public restroom and being confronted by a reporter waving a photo, demanding to know if you’d ever seen this man peeing next to you.

“The reporter said he didn’t have a story because no one would go on the record, but I told him he was wrong. The real story is the lengths to which mainstream media will go to tiptoe around the subject of sexual orientation. I advised him to write a column about his week spent in D.C.’s gay bars and public toilets.”

My take on the Popkey meeting didn’t sit well with Idaho Statesman managing editor Bill Manny, who responded to my comments shortly after they were published. "The Blade’s trivializing account of that trip does not represent our significant effort to be thorough and comprehensive and determine the truth before we report," he said.

The Statesman did the right thing in taking a cautious, fact-based approach to the story. I didn’t like all of the paper’s tactics, like trolling public restrooms, but all those involved dealt with the issue professionally and were clearly concerned about upholding journalistic standards and not rushing a story merely because a blogger posted an item using anonymous sources.

The paper’s efforts illustrate how difficult it is for mainstream media to report on issues of sexual orientation. One happy day we’ll arrive at a place where the fact of someone’s sexual orientation isn’t viewed as a private bit of information. It’s a personal characteristic like eye color or skin color – an uncontrollable fact that is nothing to be ashamed of.

This sounds like the dead hand of Larry Flynt was involved here somewhere. By now, the Hustler publisher has a collection of dossiers on Republican officeholders and appointees that makes the collection of FBI files purloined by the perpetual campaign of Herself, the Cold and Joyless, look like the bratty tattletale we all remember from the fourth grade.

There is a reason that none of the rocks the Democratican slimers are hiding under are turned over, or if they are, as rarely happens, plenty of cover is provided for them to scamper back under. This is just part of the landscape the Republicans are forced to inhabit when facing Democraticans.

More and more, being a Republican is not just an alternative to being a Democrat. It is a much higher calling, as being a US Marine is a far more demanding life choice than being, say, a street hustler.

Any old street person may walk in and sign up to be a Democrat, apparently. What the heck, it may be possible to collect a little pocket change and get a free ride all over town on Election Day, boarding a bus to one precinct, showing a passel of papers to the election clerk (good idea to memorize the name you are using when showing these papers), going to the voting booth, marking down some selections from a preselected list, then boarding the bus for the next precinct, and repeating the process all day long, each time using the new set of papers, and marking the ballot according to the list for that precinct.

A little further up the food chain, if you have a fixed address, and are making a modest salary somewhere, you may get instructions to accept an envelope of cash, and go to the local precinct office of the Democratican party (or Green, or Workers' Alliance, or whatever other front group is out there), and deliver the envelope to the clerk. This is probably in the sum of $2,300, a most magical figure, as this is the maximum allowable contribution that may be made by one individual for any one candidate for political office. Time things out right, and a distribution of similar cash contributions may be made to a number of different candidates. Of course, when the total of all the "cash contributions" made by this individual of modest means, comes to about three times the annual income claimed on the most recent income tax return, that may raise some questions.

If anybody ever gets around to asking.

Hilarious!

Craig, a Senator who most people outside of Idaho probably wouldn’t recognize if he crawled up between their legs from under a restroom stall divider, probably kept a low profile precisely because he preferred NOT to be recognized during his frequent, anonymous homo frolics in public restrooms.

And guess what? In all likelihood most of Craig’s partners over the decades were just like Craig - - perverted, well-to-do air travellers who enjoyed anonymous homo sex in public restrooms. Who did this reporter figure would ADMIT to a sick encounter with Craig in a restroom even in the one-in-a-million chance that the he actually stumbled onto somebody who maybe recognized the photo? Sheesh.

All you can do is shake your head....

Seems like the Statesman was really sensitive to Craig’s reputation (at least that’s what they claimed). I mean trolling gay bars, train station restrooms with the Senators picture asking have you seen this man and has he approached you for sex? I’ll bet that the reporter and editor would really love it if someone trolled the restrooms around Boise asking the same sorts of questions about them. How long before their reputations would be in the toilet?

Also in listening to the tape of the interview it’s obvious that the officer is threatening him with the press finding out if he doesn’t cooperate. I wonder how they did find out? Is the info available on line from one of the various services? Could Larry Flint or someone who wanted the bounty he’s offering found it from an on line search and then it found it’s way to the press? That’s an interesting question if Flint has or will be paying the bounty he put up on closeted gay Republicans over this.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.