Washington Times editor rejects "gay" as "Orwellian"
Related Links

Washington Times prints GLAA response on pedophilia, with changes 01/08/03

Rosendall: "Homosexuals pooh-pooh pedophilia" (The Washington Times) 01/08/03

Reed Irvine: "Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia" (The Washington Times) 12/28/02

Regent University Law Review, Spring 2002

Family Research Council paper: "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"

"NAMBLA: Out of the Movement's Bounds" 02/94

International Lesbian and Gay Association

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

GLAA on youth issues

Washington Times editor rejects "gay" as "Orwellian"

GLAA response


----- Original Message -----
From: letters@washingtontimes.com
To: rick.rosendall@glaa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: Dissing the 'Dish' about pedophilia


Dear Mr. Rosendall,

Per The Times' policy against Orwellian abuse of the English language, the euphemism "gay" is not used to describe the homosexual lifestyle.

Cordially,
Matthew Rarey

--------------
Matthew A. Rarey
Letters Editor
202.636.3386



Rosendall replies to Washington Times editor


From: rick.rosendall@glaa.org
To: letters@washingtontimes.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:59 PM
Subject: Unjournalistic: putting your words into someone else's mouth


Mr. Rarey,

You imposed YOUR ideology on MY letter without warning either me or your readers. You know that it was my letter, with my name under it, so there was no possibility whatsoever of your readers being confused as to whose opinions were being expressed. You distorted my meaning and message by imposing your gratuitously hostile and patronizing disdain for what, like it or not, you know is a common usage.

If you have a life, then so do I. If I have a lifestyle, so do you. If you don't like having your love trivialized as a lifestyle, then kindly don't trivialize that of others. Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you have to misrepresent the views of people you disapprove of? If your policy of rewriting and distorting letters (as distinct from editing for length or grammar) is not unprofessional and a violation of basic principles of journalism, nothing is.

Rick Rosendall


pageok