I find my typical contrarian nature completely extinguished by reading your response. Theres frankly so much that I agree with that much of what I might remark would just be an iteration of what youve already said.

Theres every possibility that my head is stuck in print media dynamics, to be fair. It’s just that the general acephalous design of the site itself seems to indicate a lack of organization that would be symptomatic that the marketing analysis that you mentioned isnt being practiced. When I arrive here, it doesnt feel like there are sections for me to choose. Rather, it feels like Im sifting through every headline trying to find something of interest. It just seems like a lack of attention to the interface distances the site from the reader. There is no section for this or category for that; every theme is thrust at me at once and I have to filter musings on same-sex aging from Rachel Watch from the two dimensional AP reports and everything else.

I find myself ultimately being a Ruby-Sachs junkie for in-depth reporting and analysis, and then stopping by for dessert with Withers take on the things that no one else is talking about, for some enigmatic reason.

I confess busting his balls on a regular basis, but its only because he engages me (and others), so I stridently rail when he attacks some precept I might hold dear, (more often as a response to readers who make it even worse and tend to sound brainwashed.). But he has a talent for getting people to talk; Im just always frustrated that its clear that with a little more investment of text instead of idiosyncratic footnotes, he could make his sharp analysis really leap off the page. Instead, it seems buried in half-thoughts and rushed transitions. In short, only the surface of his thoughts seems to come through; the stimulating cogs and wheels of his grasp really never make it through.

Regarding withers sense of insignificance, which he alludes to on another blog, I’ve noticed. He seems disengaged from his place on the podium. At the risk of committing e-psychoanalysis, he seems to have an all around, unjustified low self esteem. I never really got it either.

“I also disagree with you that it costs us, or anyone else, to address issues that are not necessarily identified with the main purpose of that group. Taken to an extreme, that clearly leads to a fractionated society unconcerned with anything other than personal identity politics. Your perspective appears to depend on the idea of limited means…”

I think the key-word there is “extreme”, and I’d have to agree whole-heartedly with that also. I was frankly impressed that you were able to make the observation “Your perspective appears to depend on the idea of limited means.” Nearly telepathic. Its true that in my time of invested activism, limited means was a recurring, debilitating. Efficiency was everything, liaisons were were guarded from monopolistic, mainstream coalitions that would have preferred us to shut up, homogenize and pay out.

I still do believe that missions need to be clear and concise, and that expenditures of time and resource need to reflect that, commercially or otherwise. It puts the responsibility of broader initiatives back on the individual who is free to belong to both the NAACP and NCLR, as opposed to having either institution confounding the direction of each other and taking their members with them.

I recall times having seen Communist-gay alliances, and find myself intellectually unable to sincerely untangle the similarities from that mesalliance from the family oriented lesbians and their “why-oh-why” inclusion of the male public fetishists in their heartfelt pursuit of family recognition. I can only assume that the notion of “equality” mathematically involves the corollary male question, and yet I know that if lesbians eschewed males from their quest and left the males fend for themselves, it seems theoretically likely that states that are not confronted with BDSM & drag parades purported as “gay pride,” but rather simply lesbians who wanted family rights, would be vast and numerous by now. These alliances simply can cause liabilities and a dynamic of leechers surviving off achievers.

So I dont think its unreasonable to ask that when race visits a topic, it be related to same-sex interests. Were it a racial minority empowerment site, I would think references to queers would need some grounding in racial issues.

But a core sentiment nagging at me is the reference to personal identity politics. It honestly creates a dissonance in my beliefs that I can only explain as such: I feel all politics quickly or slowly converge on personal identity. For example, Im queer, but my “politics” havent been reflecting that lately because Ive started identifying less with what has become popular in “the tribe” and more strongly with agendas that dont mesh with current liberal democrats, which I was all my life.

So Im not going to try to wash the dirt off my hands that is identity politics, and youre absolutely right. I’m guilty, plain and simple, or nothing about my designs, beliefs or things Ive stated as fact make sense. I can only offer this:

Personal identity politics dont have to be *divisive* politics. Concentrating on one goal doesnt demand you refuse to support or deny someone elses. It just comes down to priority; who’s number one in your fight, and we see it time and again. Does the fact that Ive never donated one red cent to the NAACP nor read a mote of their literature mean I would deny them their mission or never act in their favor? No. Does the fact that a heterosexual isnt waving some juvenile rainbow flag mean s/he would necessarily deny me mine? No.

We divide time, effort and resources in our lives to the causes that intersect with us the deepest. But we dont have to divide our greater identity, our common values, our heritage to focus as individuals on the things that are designed to bring us together.

That we are not given to asking for rights on someone elses behalf doesnt mean that we wont answer.

The politics of personal identity are equally the politics we identify with personally. I don’t foresee that underlying equation changing.

Lets make a distinction between that which distinguishes us and that which divides us. That lives would diverge towards unique paths of emotional investment portends no malice from one to the other. But when those paths are set to deliberately by others to collide, then we create division.

So my only conclusion is this: Allow us the focus to be earnest and diligent in the unique paths we claim to follow, and in doing so, allow others to be earnest and diligent in theirs. If our beliefs are just, we are converging nonetheless towards unity.

But if the path youve followed, or was laid for you brings you into collision with someone else, ask yourself if those beliefs are just, or have you simply been guided as easily as a pawn to obstruct someone else in theirs.

It is best then to know if your beliefs are just, because the essence of justice is the end of division, not the cause of it.

In your personal politics and efforts, you will achieve nothing by carrying a token sticker for every cause you agree with, nor half-hearted lip service about the same things upon which youve taken no action.

But it doesnt mean that when the opportunity calls directly upon you to really act, that you are in any way prohibited from making a difference.

With or without politics and identities, we are still individuals. Lets sincerely be those individuals crossing the arc of life together, not mindless groups standing motionless apart.

I appreciate your response, and I honestly enjoyed reading it. While I think we have some commonalities, I disagree over some of the details.

First, unlike an LGBT-themed radio or TV broadcast which traditionally (though perhaps no longer) virtually captured it’s audience requiring them to participate almost equally in any covered story sequentially until those of personal interest were reached, readers of 365 are free to click on (or not click on) any story which they think might interest them. They are also then free to spend any amount of time they might wish on each story (however lengthy or brief). I know that I personally skip many stories, reading no more than the blurb under the headline, because I quickly see that it is of no interest to me. Others I open, quickly realize do not address what I thought they would, and close just as quickly. I assume most readers act similarly. I also assume that out of self-interest, 365 tracks readers to determine where their interests lie.

Again, unlike previous information streams, people are free to spread whatever length of time they wish on 365 as opposed to having to tune into a dedicated 30 or 60 minutes. They are free to read only the major news, or every single article.

And while clearly oriented towards national news, posting a news blurb like “gay anchorman demoted” which might only be interesting to a local audience really doesn’t seem to cost others anything but the time to decide not to read it. I would also add that though I found that particular piece less than interesting as news, it might well have been the first look at a more newsworthy breaking story.

I honestly don’t have any serious problems with any of the bloggers here, and if I did, I would most likely voice my opinion by not reading their articles. I am saddened that the AP news blurbs are often poorly written with no details and/or links to details. I personally think this can, and should, be improved. What bothers me more is that on what many call the premier gay news site the reader’s comments are generally inferior to the norm on other sites I read (I’m thinking of Bilerico for example [All hail Bil]). I make use of 365 as a great resource for gathering news, but I find that I generally have to go elsewhere for good interactions among the readers.

Personally, I think some of the complaints you are lodging against Withers are the result of his reactions to rather infantile race-based insults/accusations that are regularly leveled against him in the comments section. I think the majority, if not all, of the rest amount to his stylistic choices as opposed to the ones you would make. If I read you correctly though, I do agree with you that I enjoy Mr. Withers ability to roam through the news of the day.

I also disagree with you that it costs us, or anyone else, to address issues that are not necessarily identified with the main purpose of that group. Taken to an extreme, that clearly leads to a fractionated society unconcerned with anything other than personal identity politics. Your perspective appears to depend on the idea of limited means, and if nothing else I don’t think of electrons (digital information) on the internet being limited. Yes if every blogger wrote unlimited essays on butterflies this would quickly become a site for lepidopterists, but I personally don’t fear the results of the occasional article (about butterflies or anything else). In fact, I often find these to be quite interesting because the author generally has some compelling interest.

To return to Gates, this story quickly became national news. I don’t think it’s exactly unexpected for it to be covered in some way here as well. Unlike your watered drink analogy, and as mentioned previously, readers here are free to choose which articles they want to consume. Rather than a watered down drink, I would argue that the closer analogy is that you have been presented with different liquors, waters, sodas and ice and are free to make your drink to suit yourself. And unlike a print magazine, a website can get instant feedback about reader’s interests simply by following hits and time-spent.

You will notice that much of the length of your response I did not address. How can I disagree with something like:

“That is, what is written here not only influences thought, but acts as a harbinger of things being discussed elsewhere.”

One of the things I strongly disagree with Mr. Withers on is that I have seen him mention how little influence he has. Actually, I think that all of the bloggers on, at least, the major sites exert a tremendous amount of influence. But I would also include the commenters. The reason I mentioned my disappoint in many of the readers comments here (vs other sites), is because I believe they have just as tremendous an influence in modeling behaviors and reactions throughout the nation.

Or:

“Why is so much devoted to what *has* happened and not what could when the news is slow? What should happen, and why. Thats the power of editorilization and difference between blandly reporting facts. Here, I find that power often wasted.”

I agree that this site does not contain enough of what you are calling editorializing to fully suit my tastes (and I go to other sites for that), and I’m not fully certain what their reasoning is on this.

Right. So when police wrongfully arrest a Samoan in Brooklyn, its a gay issue. When a Pakistani immigrant is wrongfully detained at an airport, its a gay issue. When an Algerian tourist is maliciously prosecuted in Topeka, Kansas, its a gay issue. When a black professor suggests police are harassing him because he’s black, even if he’s demonstrably wrong, its a gay issue.

The racial woes of every ethnicity on the planet are now our focus because no one can relate to being discriminated against on their appearance than queers.

I dont think the world is grasping just how horribly victimized gays are and how bad we’ve had it. We need to gain the publics respect by constantly reminding them how hurt our feelings are. It seems the blacks stole our thunder and wont give it back, so I see no other choice if we are to compete:

If we are going to find unity, I move that homosexuals are classified as their own race.

Theres no other way. Blacks, Algerians, Samoans and Pakistanis simply refuse to return our empty token laments for equality, so I see no choice but to breakaway and become our own race if we want to be taken seriously.

Because let me assure you: NO one should be covering the Chad Gibson story as closely as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, those ungrateful bastards.

http://www.adc.org/

Its not even on page 2.

“I find the constant refrains of “how is this news worthy [eg gay anchorman demoted]” and “how is this gay news [eg Gates]” as annoying as those who are constantly chirping in trying to prove their intelligence by acting as amateur editors.”

I have to confess having become absolutely paranoid about what passes for “gay” media. I’m acutely aware of the influence media has had on our “culture” and dont have many kind things to say about it. Thus, because of the prominence of this website, being the first search return for “gay news” I hold it to a standard elevated to meet the same suspicion of agenda, which- while described in various ways,- could be referred to as “group-think” and a homogenization through outside dictatorial influences.

That is, what is written here not only influences thought, but acts as a harbinger of things being discussed elsewhere.

So its not just a question of the standard applied, but the standards thus set.

The “gay anchorman” is a good example. Another was the “wrestlers photos” piece. One sits back and has to wonder “what was going through these peoples minds when they associated this with ourselves?” Is there no standard of relevance, are we to be defined by every passing nuance that indirectly intersects with any cliques whimsical attention?

Or can we strive for principle, merit and universal significance? Why is so much devoted to what *has* happened and not what could when the news is slow? What should happen, and why. Thats the power of editorilization and difference between blandly reporting facts. Here, I find that power often wasted.

So while the feedback may be annoying, (such as it is) it nonetheless shapes trends and stokes discussion. It’s another quality of Withers, is that he clearly doesn’t wait on mainstream press to spit out an ephemeral headline, but obviously pulls stories, scenes and personalities from a broad, diverse pool of sources that are sorely missing from most of the other blogs. For all my criticisms, some serious and some facetious, regardless of how the blogs turns out in print, there arent really any obvious bloggers here that take the initiative to scout out other broad sources of news and otherwise missed stories, and colligate them here.

I honestly dont understand how anyone “proves intelligence” deliberately. Its either there or it isnt. Intentions do nothing to reveal or conceal it. When its there, it invites discussion, even moreso when there is opposition. I may disagree with a lot of people here, but if I respond, as I do with Withers from time to time, it simply shows that there was enough of a valid set of reasoning, “right” or “wrong”, to entice an examination. When people respond with bumper-sticker blurbs, it does nothing to engage our minds.

As for Obama mentioning LGBTs at the NAACP address, while flattering, frankly seemed inappropriate. It really says nothing to empower the theme of the event, and comes across as an awkward cheap sound-bite, with sincerity that is further undermined by the fact that its addressing a minority within a minority, not out in front where everyone everywhere would notice.

Besides, taking on agendas that detract from any organizations central theme is simply hijacking resources, time and effort. So no, I can honestly say the NAACP doesnt owe us the time of day; the members are free to do whatever they like in other organizations. If I was paying dues for the NAACP, I sure as hell wouldnt want to hear that a percentage is being tithed to further blur the mission of the institution. Its just bad strategy. Clumsily concocted coalitions achieve nothing for anyone.

Likewise is this, which I view as being a lesbian rights movement being saddled with a majority of males who clearly don’t exhibit any desire for government recognized families, transgenders who would be rightfully sick of being simultaneously judged by and yet associated with same-sex oriented males, and bisexuals who are still waiting in the shadows for decades for everyone to stop inventing label lifestyles and simply universally recognize and agree upon their very existence as a unique and ancient entity without being verbally kidnapped into the “gay” camp while being rejected as infidels by everyone else.

“…can’t we occasionally discuss a story that doesn’t involve any LGBT people without pulling our hair out?”

No. Quite simply: no. Today, niche media thrives on specific interest themes. Its poor business to assume the audience’s other musings and be wrong time and again. Whether you’re buying a magazine or navigating to a website, people want to see what they came for. Writers that cant stick to the spirit of the publication eventually find themselves off the payroll. Magazines that allow it eventually go under. Its not that the stories shouldnt exist, but they need a proper outlet, or at the very least, their own clearly labeled subsection, if only for distinction in marketing analysis to see what sub-themes work and which don’t.

But as for amalgamation within the main body of content, knowing that your drink was watered down a little is the same disappointment as knowing it was watered down a lot. Its one thing to provide a reference, a web-link or an outright advertisement if you have the truly noble intention of broadening your audiences base of knowledge. Its another thing altogether to devote site resources, time and traffic to dropping an off-theme article in place of the relevant article that could have been there and wasnt. Plural media only works in plural marketing.

Withers vacillates between the two. Sometimes, he only stretches the topic to fit it in the theme, other times he lets the merits of his article work and simply sprinkles within it off-site links for those intrigued enough by some factor therein to further investigate; and thus the broader subjects that may intersect the topic are available for more in-depth discovery, comprehension and contemplation for those who are truly up to seeking it.

Actually, the first random thoughts piece came with a request for responses as to whether it should continue. As is probably obvious, the result was favorable. More, while we’re sharing personal opinions, I find the constant refrains of “how is this news worthy [eg gay anchorman demoted]” and “how is this gay news [eg Gates]” as annoying as those who are constantly chirping in trying to prove their intelligence by acting as amateur editors. That being said, I will grant that I get very disappointed in main articles when I find misspellings and other errors, and that if most of the topics covered here were not directly pertinent to the LGBT community it would pretty much by definition stop being a “gay” website.

More importantly, should Obama not have mentioned the LGBT community when addressing the NAACP because that’s not a black topic? Should the leadership of the NAACP not be working to build a consensus to help promote gay rights because it’s not a black issue?

While I understand that it’s important for this site to remain LGBT-centric, can’t we occasionally discuss a story that doesn’t involve any LGBT people without pulling our hair out?

I took the “Withers challenge” a few days ago. I looked back over the archives to see how often not “anti-gay” violence was covered. I was so inundated with what seemed like gossip columns and “random thoughts” (thats just cheating James; leave that for MySpace blogs) that I gave up by the time I reached April. Perez Hilton, Michael Jackson, Adam Lambert (twice), Walter Cronkite. And although there was a legitimate wealth of blogs on politicians with what I must concede is an impressively heightened acumen for social and political dynamics, often the politician is written about as though it were a gossip column, not a serious forensic examination of the persons motives. Its not that I dont think Withers has a grasp of people in the news, -far from it -its just that he seems to “dumb it down” with a lot of tangential, convoluted “personality” references to himself, deliberately or naturally, as if its being exported to E!Tv or the Jerry Springer crowd.

You don’t see this nearly as much from the other bloggers (with possibly Corvino as an exception, with whom I’ve met briefly and am somewhat disappointed lately). While perhaps not as “prolific” as James, the other bloggers write with more density and dont stop every three lines to relate the story to their personal lives as though I’m watching “The View”. When someone relates the news through constant personal references and kitschy asides, it comes across as “trash TV”.

I also must cede that some of its personal tastes and my own bias. Not that anyone should give a crap what some anonymous poster thinks, but I feel that Withers addresses race on the wrong cues and from the wrong angles all too often. Its usually defensive and only triggered by black misfortunes; this subject was just over the top, even for Withers. I was actually saddened that another blogger covered the death of Harris, an actual “gay” black writer when it seemed that for all the bluster over a black literary academic essentially introduced as a mentor, Withers would have had a better, more intimate grasp of a man who actually *was* a writer in both the “gay” and black literary comunity, and perhaps would’ve had a better feel for the mans career than the rather dry eulogy 365 delivered.

Another bias is my atavistic dumbfoundment at Withers defense of obnoxious people during a time when the tribe as a whole is trying to access rights as families. Many defend them, but Withers is quite intelligent enough that I have no idea how he can make such pointed defenses of obnoxious people, unless its just to gain favor with hoi polloi, as if thats where his heart is. Again, a crude demographic. And right or wrong, Withers can always make me become apoplectic with his pacifist tidings for the oppressive majority; moreover, suggesting that playing nice is the most effective way to accomplish rights, and even further still, that those who do not wish to pursue such a tepid strategy are somehow the fifth column. I naturaly become vehement when I hear that same propaganda being issued today that quashed those who were more invested in civil freedom than felicitous images in the 90′s,and furthered the cultural decline among us, and Withers has what appears to be a sincere flair for these sentiments.

I’ve woefully digressed from the gravamen, but an honest context seemed appropriate. Withers is hardly the only blogger guilty of covering baser subjects; in fact another previously mentioned blogger seems to have a gift for better articultion of even worse topics. Its just that with Withers keen grasp of social dynamics, I’m constantly saddened, and maybe even frustrated that valid, frankly trenchant insights into truly valid political observations read like Ann Landers in the lifestyle section instead of what could be incisive, fact-packed, hard-hitting editorials for adults. I would rather look forward to one serious investigation per week that Withers IS capable of than all the empty asides and half-hearted blurbs I see so often. wither does address if not soundly articulate a lot of perspectives that others seem to miss, which is why I still peruse his blogs.

Perhaps its not his fault. It wouldnt surprise me if 365′s remunerations failed to motivate.

“What I havent figured out is if the site *asks* Withers to cover the ghetto news demographic, or if it just comes to him naturally.”

Maybe you can explain what you mean by “ghetto news.”

James

July 24th, 2009
“…there is no suggestion from me the man who arrested Gates, Sergeant James M. Crowley, is a racist.”

July 21st, 2009

“Those convinced America is now in some post-racial hue, will see this as an unfortunate encounter that could have been defused. Others, and I include myself in this camp, will marvel that even a black man with a PhD has to account for his status.”

For christs sake, the even title of the first blog is not “Harvard prof arrested in his own home” but instead “Harvard African-American prof arrested in his own home”

In the second blog, where the backpaddling begins, the word “black” shows up four times (white once) as Withers attempts to justify the article by basiclly saying that all police mishaps should be of interest to gays, and even further presses with the gall of making a comparison between Chad Gibson, who was beaten bloody to the hospital during a police raid on a gay bar on the Stonewall anniversary, and a liberal arts professor that becomes enraged at being discovered by “the man” locking himself out of his own house.

In Withers mind, these are equally valid to gay interest because they involve…. a cop.

Somehow the shared minority status isnt as important when few can continue to call it a legitimate race issue. So now its just about bungling police, and that somehow relates fussy professors to bludgeoned gays on the Stonewall anniversary.

And from this, we are to deduce relevance, not that the blogger had racial designs for his e-pulpit that didn’t turn out to hold water.

Gimme a break. An indignant heterosexual professor that made a career out of focusing on race informs Withers thinking enough that Gates gets center stage on his blog for a week. It becomes clear why Withers blogs here and not a black-empowerment website:

If the black majority wont give him marriage, what are the odds they want him representing the news?

Clearly we’re not Withers first choice, because he’s clearly not theirs.