Any comments?Lose this stuff:
Publishes an arts and entertainment section that regularly evidences an unhealthy obsession with deviant lifestyles, in which readers often think they've picked up "The Guide to Gay and Lesbian Nightlife" by mistake.
The point of such debate pieces is to bring people over to your side of the argument. There are literally millions of people out there who would be willing to seriously consider your main point, that the Times has largely abandoned any pretense of objectivity and turned into a liberal shill, but the moment they see you referring to gays as "deviants," they're going to decide YOU'RE the problem and walk away.
Put another way: About 3/4 of the country believes, or at least suspects, the media is filled with liberal bias, but almost as many people (not always the SAME people, mind you) believe gays should not be publicly demonized, at least not merely for existing. So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias.
"So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias."
I'm not sure you understand the L.A. Times. It's promotion of homosexuality is so brazen it's impossible to ignore. It's part and parcel of their bias. You actually can't leave the paper around children.
I'd love to go back to that brief period, between about 1975 and 1985, when a person's homosexuality was none of my business. Then there would be no reason to talk about it.
But that's no longer the homosexuals' agenda.
If they continue to rub people's faces in a lifestyle that most find to be unnatural and immoral, but would otherwise look the other way from, there is bound to be a backlash.
