GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/12/10/advocate-calls-anti-hrc-e-mail-anti-gay/trackback/

  1. Didn’t read the story that way initially, but on reflection, you are absolutly correct.

    Great post, Dan.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 10, 2009 @ 7:41 am - December 10, 2009

  2. HRC is totally blameless in this firing. They did not “get” the guy fired. He sent an email, they complained and they guy’s boss capitulated. HRC is free to complain over anything they want.
    So I expect your next post to go after the Newspaper who fired the guy and his wife…

    The silver lining in this case is there are unions and he has the right to contest the firing…so if indeed this is as harmless as it initially appears, its likely he won’t be fired or at least get compensation.

    Unions Yes!

    Comment by gillie — December 10, 2009 @ 9:42 am - December 10, 2009

  3. gillie#2 is right in the sense that it was his craven editor who went nuclear and fired him (and then his wife for good measure – yikes!)

    But, HRC doesn’t smell like roses. They researched and identified this individual from his private email account, found out where he worked professionally and then contacted his employer. That’s a real douche move no matter how you slice it and HRC deserves all the bad press this will engender.

    Ah, the Prop 8 backlash comes to the Pine Tree State. Who didn’t see this happening?

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 10, 2009 @ 10:01 am - December 10, 2009

  4. If I were Grard’s editor, I certainly would’ve given him a reprimand for the “you people” construction.

    And by “reprimand,” I mean that I would’ve stabbed him in the hand with a blue-pencil, because FOR FUCK’S SAKE, how fucking tin-eared must a professional writer be to not realize that you people… can sound pretty hostile, and particularly when addressed to members of a minority demographic?

    That said, I wouldn’t have fired the guy — just maimed him slightly. Editors have to do this sometimes, or the writers will never learn.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 10, 2009 @ 11:17 am - December 10, 2009

  5. MFS-

    Is it really a douche move? They have their own political interests and those of their donors at heart. If they know one of their media contacts is going to be unhelpful in getting their message across, I think they acted appropriately in their own self interest.

    The guy is a journalist, and broke professional ethics and standards in inserting his personal opinion directly in the face of a group he would need to maintain object contact with. Newspapers rely on their guys being objective observers and keeping their horse out of the race so they can appear objective and sell newspapers. This guy made himself damaged goods by not exercising self restraint, and was punished appropriately for it. End of story.

    Comment by Tim — December 10, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - December 10, 2009

  6. there’s a key fact in dispute: grard claims that HRC demanded his firing; HRC claims that they simply contacted his editor and noted the “inappropriateness” of the message. in other words, we don’t know the actual truth (yet) about HRC’s role in getting grard fired. but that hasn’t stopped dan and a litany of commenters on here from accusing HRC of various sundry activities. i think that says more about dan’s anti-HRC bias than it does about the HRC itself.

    Comment by Chad — December 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - December 10, 2009

  7. Um, gillie, you’re commenting to the wrong post. Issue here is not the facts that appear to be in dispute (about content of HRC’s e-mail), but headline of Advocate article.

    Um, Chad, what exactly am I accusing HRC of? I’m just observing that a lot of gay people have been highly critical of the left-leaning organization. In this post, I deliberately did not address Grard’s claim that HRC requested his dismissal as I acknowledge the facts are in dispute.

    That said, I’m going on information from a reputable (and non-conservative) news course. And Chad, as per that key fact in dispute, Mr. Thomas could resolve it quickly by releasing the e-mail he wrote to Thompson.

    Oh, and, I’m wondering why HRC went to the all the trouble of tracking down Mr. Grard’s employer after receiving the intemperate e-mail. Yeah, it was a juvenile thing to do, but, heck, Bruce and I received far worse missives than that. As have other bloggers.

    Finally, guys, can you ever address the points of my posts. It was about an Advocate headline misrepresenting a certain e-mail. Intemperate and childish it was, but its ire was directed at HRC in specific, perhaps the “No on 1″ campaign in general, but not at all gays.

    Guess some of you guys would just rather attack me than engage me. If I were like HRC, I’d track y’all down via your IP addresses.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 10, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - December 10, 2009

  8. Frankly, I believe the proof that Grard was referring to gays and their supporters with his “you hateful people” statement is in the line “Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd.” After that, it’s pretty safe to assume he’s referring to the “no on 1″ crowd. Either that or he sucks as a writer/reporter of 35 years who still has an ability to write with clarity. Then again, the fact that he responded in such an unprofessional way to a press release pretty much drives that point home.

    Comment by Nikki — December 10, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - December 10, 2009

  9. Oops. That should’ve been “an inability to write with clarity.”

    Comment by Nikki — December 10, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - December 10, 2009

  10. geez, dan. you’ve posted twice on this issue in the last day; pardon me for commenting on the wrong post. if it’s really a sticking point, then feel free to cut-and-paste my comment onto your other post.

    but my comment was a good-faith attempt to engage you on a substantive issue. i think you rushed to judgment regarding HRC’s role in grard’s firing, based solely on his self-serving account of the incident. in this post, you give a very charitable reading to grard’s email, which in my opinion, provides more evidence of your anti-hrc bias.

    Comment by Chad — December 10, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - December 10, 2009

  11. Tim #5, this poor bastard didn’t even have the gay marriage beat.

    Newspapers rely on their guys being objective observers and keeping their horse out of the race so they can appear objective

    Objective?!?  Like The New York Times?  Or the Washington Post? Maybe CBS? NBC? ABC?

    Look, we all have that urge now and again: “so-and-so acted crappy to me and now I’m going to make him pay!”  The point is that we act like adults and don’t act on those impulses.  Well, maybe HRC does…

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 10, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - December 10, 2009

  12. [...] Advocate calls anti-HRC e-mail “anti-gay” [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Did I just send an anti-gay e-mail? — December 10, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - December 10, 2009

  13. If he sent this email during working hours and/or on a company computer, I have no sympathy for him. If not, his editor looks like a weasley ass. Ditto for HRC.

    Comment by John — December 10, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - December 10, 2009

  14. John, if all you suppose were true, then a reprimand would clearly be in order, but not dismissal–unless this were the latest in a string of intemperate e-mails. And he had been warned before.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 10, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - December 10, 2009

  15. now it sounds like your real grievance ought to be with grard’s employer, not hrc.

    Comment by Chad — December 10, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - December 10, 2009

  16. Chad, if you can provide me with a copy of the HRC e-mail in question and verify its accuracy, then, yes. With the facts we have at hand, my grievance is with both.

    But, even if new facts come to light, that doesn’t change the point of this particular post.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 10, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - December 10, 2009

  17. First of all, I’m amazed HRC would care about anything that doesn’t pad their fat wallets.

    Second, why did they give a crap about his particular e-mail to spend so much time on it?

    Third, I’m guessing the e-mail to the editor was carefully worded as a CYA on HRC’s part so they have deniability. That gives douchenozzles like Tim and ghillie to rant about how the HRC assholes are totally blameless.

    Let’s not forget the apparent and typical hostility of the e-mail from the high priced whores at HRC.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 10, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - December 10, 2009

  18. The interesting thing in all of this is watching the schizophrenia of the HRC defenders.

    First, they say this:

    Newspapers rely on their guys being objective observers and keeping their horse out of the race so they can appear objective and sell newspapers.

    But previously, they were saying this:

    If they know one of their media contacts is going to be unhelpful in getting their message across, I think they acted appropriately in their own self interest.

    So Tim demands newspapers be objective…..but that they slant their stories in favor of “getting (HRC’s) message across”.

    HRC would not have cared if this guy sent them a favorable email. But when he didn’t, they got all upset about “objectivity”.

    They simply aren’t capable of being criticized. And given that they themselves fund and support people who support amendments against gay marriage, they’re a bunch of lying, pathetic hypocrites.

    Do you think before you defend, Tim? Or are you just of the mind that everything another gay person does is right?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2009 @ 12:24 am - December 11, 2009

  19. Dan at #7:

    Intemperate and childish it was…

    You continue to call Grard’s note to HRC intemperate, and I still fail to see much of anything intemperate in it.

    You have already established that the HRC is intemperate and childish for calling Doug Hoffman an anti-gay extremist “for holding the same position on gay marriage as the incumbent Democratic President of the United States.” Calling them out on their ‘everyone who disagrees with us is evil’ attitude hardly seems intemperate. Perhaps the “good riddance” was a little over the top, but still…

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 11, 2009 @ 1:10 am - December 11, 2009

  20. Throbert McGee at #4:

    how fucking tin-eared must a professional writer be to not realize that you people… can sound pretty hostile, and particularly when addressed to members of a minority demographic?

    Oh, spare us. The freaking Ross Perot controversy all over again!

    Any minority bothered by Grard’s “you hateful people” needs professional help in getting over his militant hypersensitivity.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 11, 2009 @ 1:17 am - December 11, 2009

  21. Fair points, CLDave, very fair.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 11, 2009 @ 1:30 am - December 11, 2009

  22. Tim at #5:

    The guy is a journalist, and broke professional ethics and standards in inserting his personal opinion directly in the face of a group he would need to maintain object contact with. … This guy made himself damaged goods by not exercising self restraint, and was punished appropriately for it.

    Tim, oh, Tim. Why are you such an ass? I mean really.

    I try not to be intemperate (there’s that word again!) and impolite in my comments, but the people like you so try my patience with your foolishness.

    On the original thread on this story, Dan asked you:

    Tim, since Mr. Grard had a stellar reputation before this intemperate e-mail, then why such a draconian punishment. Why not just a reprimand.

    You didn’t reply.

    On that same thread, I told you:

    Reporters make their personal opinions clear all the time, and not just when editorializing or taking part in opinion programing. They make their biases very clear in their reporting all the time.

    The main reason that the profession of journalism is said to be dying is because the left turned it into a propaganda machine.

    Grard’s firing fits perfectly in line with this. He never, as you claim, “willingly [stepped] out of the role” of being “an objective observer and reporter.” He simply reacted privately to a message that had been sent to his e-mail account.

    You didn’t respond to that either. But here’s your second chance!

    Tell us, did you think that woman on CNN who got into the TEA Party protestor’s face during her live reporter deserved to be fired for inserting her personal biases into her coverage?

    Would you take such umbrage every time a reporter has words with a conservative group? (We know this happens because such groups have complained about it. I don’t recall anyone being fired, though.)

    Why don’t you just admit you’re a nasty little leftist who enjoys seeing a conservative lose his job? The truth is freeing, after all.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 11, 2009 @ 1:30 am - December 11, 2009

  23. Average Gay Joe at #13:

    If he sent this email during working hours and/or on a company computer, I have no sympathy for him.

    I think a little sympathy would be in order under those circumstances.

    I assure you, left-wing reporters give conservatives pieces of their minds all the time without being fired (or even reprimanded) all the time.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 11, 2009 @ 1:33 am - December 11, 2009

  24. 14: That’s up to his employer, Dan. I can almost guarantee you that his now former employer had a policy in place to cover usage of their computers which is open-ended enough to apply in this case. It matters not whether you or I think it was right, fair, etc. I doubt I myself would have fired him based on the message content I read, but then public relations/imagery isn’t as much a part of my business as it for this one. I guess it would depend upon what the fallout was and what impact I thought it could have on the company I work for.

    23: Then this gentleman needs to find a more traditionalist-minded employer who will overlook something like this just like the liberals you mention have chosen employment for bosses who share their particular worldview.

    Mind you, I say all of this assuming that no Federal, State or local laws were violated in the termination or even contractual obligations. If any were, this gentleman should pursue his rights in the appropriate venue.

    Comment by John — December 11, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - December 11, 2009

  25. Oh one more thing: regardless of the actions of his employer, this doesn’t let HRC off the hook.

    Comment by John — December 11, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - December 11, 2009

  26. Then this gentleman needs to find a more traditionalist-minded employer who will overlook something like this just like the liberals you mention have chosen employment for bosses who share their particular worldview.

    Or, perhaps people who are in the business of reporting the news should stop being left-wing thought-nazis.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 12, 2009 @ 4:53 pm - December 12, 2009

  27. Yeah, like THAT’S gonna happen… ;-)

    Comment by John — December 12, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - December 12, 2009

  28. dan says: Chad, if you can provide me with a copy of the HRC e-mail in question and verify its accuracy, then, yes. With the facts we have at hand, my grievance is with both.

    gee dan, could you set the bar a little higher? the only reason you made that challenge is because you know i can’t provide that email, if it even exists. but it doesn’t even matter, because even if i could produce that email, it doesn’t make your impulsive, ill-informed and kneejerk reaction any more palatable. a more even-keeled person might have surveyed the facts and cautioned against judgment, but you have already decided that hrc is culpable, even though you acknowledge that you are missing a critical piece of information.

    Comment by Chad — December 13, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - December 13, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.488 Powered by Wordpress