Which they are. And homophobic media-filled gossip as well.

How is it homophobic? The accusation from day one was that Lynch had solicited a prostitute. That's illegal regardless of your sexual orientation.

Was the accusation that he had solicited a prostitute? Because I don't remember that in any of the early stories. All I can remember was an accusation that his car had been seen in the area. There was never any real accusation, and that's the rub right there. If we're all guilty of something because our car is sitting in an area where illegal activity is happening... then I don't live in the country I thought I did.

Except... If that car is seen in an area where homosexual encounters sometimes occur... well, that's a different story, isn't it?

See the thing is, we don't know a damn thing about what he was accused of (or I don't... and maybe I missed where the paper was being specific)...

True, it would likely be a story if he'd been soliciting a female prostitute (or a prostitute of any kind), but the only reason I can see that there was a story on this was that this is an area where illegal homosexual activity occurs.

Ask yourself this. If his car had been parked on first (now I'm placing myself in a predicament, because I don't know where to pick up a heterosexual prostitute, but it seems to me that First Avenue use to be one of the places), and his plates had been run, and even if if the occupant of the car... even if the occupant of the car was Jack Lynch himself, had been checking out the ladies... there is simply no story in it unless he steps up and says "how much"?

Is this so hard to see?

Maybe the police go back to the department and say "guess who I saw checking out the ladies on First," and maybe they'll be on the lookout for that same vehicle, but I still say there's no story in it until something actually happens.

It's rather difficult to point to exactly where the homophobia originates... because it doesn't. It permeates.

And so far as the newspaper reader was concerned, Jack Lynch was being accused of... well, we don't know. And so long as we don't have the information, we make it up. We draw our own conclusions.

So please, tell me if I'm wrong. Did the newspaper accuse Jack Lynch of seeking out a prostitute? Or did it simply say "we don't know what he was doing down there, but we're guessing at the very least the man is gay?" And if the newspaper said the latter, then what on earth kind of news is that?

There was a credible accusation that a city official was breaking the law, and that the police were trying to cover it up. When reporters started asking questions, the city official refused to talk to them and later disappeared without explanation.

Sorry, folks, but to me, that's a story worth pursuing. Sexuality doesn't even enter the picture.

I won't deny anyone their right to criticize how the story was handled in print. I'm not going to get into that - I've made my position known and dislike repeating myself.

But the newspaper's motivation from the beginning has been to make sure that the people we pay to uphold the law are obeying the law themselves. I personally believe that KREM-TV was pursuing the story for the same reason, but it isn't my place to speak on their behalf.

The suspicion that a public official soliciated a male prostitute is an order of magnitude more damaging than if it were a female prostitute and the S-R knows it. Saying they're both illegal acts is true, but disingenuous to say the least in terms of the public's reaction to male homosexuality.

But what really bugs me about this whole series of articles is the inescapable feeling that Morlin and Steele have bigger and nastier suspicions about Lynch that made the rumors plausible in their minds. It is very unsettling to think that because a public official has some political enemies and a personality that's less than congenial, it makes him the target of an open-ended newspaper investigation. This looks more and more like Morlin and Steele have personal anomosities towards Lynch. They are caught up in in a downward spiral of "confirmation bias" -- confirming what you expect to find by selectively accepting or ignoring information. The longer the S-R pursues this story, the closer they come to reckless-disregard-for-the-truth territory.

Today's story leaves the distinct impression that the SR is saying "It's not ours and KREM's fault for creating a news story, blowing this out of proportion, and not letting go--it was SPD, we SWEAR! Really, please believe us."

Absolutely pathetic attempt to "create" news. This and the whole "Hession under fire" crap is rediculous. If there's nothing to cover locally you could take a look at that whole Iraq/Iran problem we've somehow managed to get oursleves into.

The suspicion that a public official soliciated a male prostitute is an order of magnitude more damaging than if it were a female prostitute and the S-R knows it. Saying they're both illegal acts is true, but disingenuous to say the least in terms of the public's reaction to male homosexuality.

That's an interesting point. There's no question that a lot of people hold a double-standard when it comes to sexuality.

On the other hand, a lot of people also seem to be willing to forgive illicit sexual activity among gay men. That's a double-standard, too.

Is it the newspaper's responsibility to conform the news to people's prejudices? If we do, which prejudices do we choose?

Whoa, Ken.

What's "illicit" sexual activity among gay men?

And as soon as you guys start checking cars parked on East Sprague to see if public officials are frequenting that area, then I suppose I'll understand your persistence in tracking the High Bridge Park area. So, clue me in when that starts to occur.

The point I was trying to make is that the public's attitude towards sexual behavior falls on a continuum between acceptable, neutral and unacceptable. That spectrum of acceptability varies from region to region. As residents of Spokane, S-R reporters are as aware as anybody about the kind of reaction the Lynch rumors would generate. So the issue, as I see it, is not one of newspapers conforming to people's prejudices. It's more a matter of your reporters knowing what the "hot buttons" are and exploiting this knowledge. One could make the case that that is integral to news, but that not my point. What I disgreed with is the assertion that the two crimes are equal. Legally, they are, but they sure aren't in the eyes of this community. So the Lynch rumors had an extra degree of sordidness and titillation because of the gay angle. And that certainly taps into the homosexual prejudices still prevalent in this region. Here's a hypothetical conversation --

Citizen 1: "There's a rumor that Jack Lynch was down in High Bridge Park and the police saw him picking up a prostitute."
Citizen 2: "Geez, you've got to be kidding."
Citizen 1: "But that's not all. The rumor is it was a *male* prostitute!"
Citizen 2: "Oh my God..."

What's "illicit" sexual activity among gay men?

Exchanging money for sex, or having sex in a city park. We're all clear that those things are against the law, right? Even if it's with someone of the same gender?

And as soon as you guys start checking cars parked on East Sprague to see if public officials are frequenting that area, then I suppose I'll understand your persistence in tracking the High Bridge Park area. So, clue me in when that starts to occur.

Checking cars parked anywhere looking for public officials would be a really dumb and inefficient way to report a story. No one here was "tracking" High Bridge Park. They were acting on credible tips given to them by police officers.

And Ophelia, I think I'm understanding your point - you're saying that additional caution should have been used because sexuality was an issue (correct me if I'm wrong). I understand, but I disagree. Whether the two crimes aren't equal in the eyes of the community isn't something we can control.

Ken -- yes, I think we're on the same page. The S-R can't control public perception of the crime, but it can control the degree to which it exploits or capitalizes on that perception.

Excuse me if I take a bit of tangent here, but I'm trying to remember how the whole subject of what goes on in High Bridge Park came up in the first place. If memory serves, there was a case last summer of a man in his late 60s/early 70s who was abducted. Initial reports said he was last seen at a diner on the North Side. Later reports indicated that he had frequented High Bridge Park and may have picked up a sexual companion there. The guy who abducted him was later apprehended -- after other abductions and a murder, if I recall correctly -- by police in San Bernardino. The suspect said he killed the Spokane man and left his body under a bridge "somewhere." The body has never been found. Long story short, the High Bridge Park connection to this abduction was the first I had heard about this kind of activity there. Is this what prompted the stepped-up police activity in High Bridge that Lynch said he was monitoring? I'm curious about this and have never seen it mentioned in any of Morlin's or Steel's articles.

So, Ken, not to belabor your point too much, but

On the other hand, a lot of people also seem to be willing to forgive illicit sexual activity among gay men. That's a double-standard, too.

A lot of people? Can you give me ANY concrete examples of this? Or is this one of those generic "studies have shown" without any actual examples to back this up? I suppose I can forgive a lot of things, though I know of no one arguing against any sex crimes being prosecuted, should those who commit them actually get caught. But that argument doesn't mean it's ok to smear anyone WITHOUT proof. Or am I misinterpreting here?

Now, if you meant to say that given Spokane's (and the Inland Northwest's) generally homophobic and repressive culture that people understand why this area's gay community is generally closeted and forced into "illicit" sex exchanges hidden in the brush of city parks, then I guess I would have to agree with that. But if the S-R's values code really indicates that it's staff is supposed to do good rather than just good work (neither of which was done here, in my opinion), well then I would think you guys would seek not to further the repression of this region's gay community.

I think, Greg, what I'm trying to say is that there are people in this community willing to turn a blind eye to what goes on in High Bridge Park (maybe "a lot" was a poor choice of words on my part). As you know, I agree 100% that it's unfortunate that people's prejudices force so many people to repress their sexuality. But being repressed doesn't give someone license to break the law, especially if your job is to uphold it.

How's that?

I agree with that sentiment. And as soon as the S-R has actual facts indicating that someone has broken a law, I will support the reporting of it, much as I did the reporting of the West case.

Of course, reporting on rumor and innuendo when there's no proof that a law was broken, well, sorry, but I can't condone that. Not in a supposed, ahem, mainstream news publication at least.

And to respond to Ophelia's post - High Bridge Park's reputation is long-standing and unfortunately well deserved. I did a quick scan of the archives and found several articles that cite the park's problems with drugs and prostitution.

Here's an example from a story in 2001:

For the elementary school, the council is proposing the city donate about five acres located at A Street and Riverside Avenue, near High Bridge Park, an area that has become synonymous with drug use and prostitution. The proposed site is being used to store landscaping materials for the city.

Stanton said having an elementary school near High Bridge Park would not be putting children in harm's way so much as it would force the crime to move out of the area.

“If we utilized that facility for a school, that would clear out all of the illegal activity. The Police Department has severe penalties for dealing drugs near a school,” Stanton said.

Here's another from 1998:

City officials are hoping to scare the crime out of High Bridge Park.

On Tuesday, police and the city Parks Department began efforts to make the West Spokane park safer. High Bridge Park runs along the Latah Creek bank and under the Interstate 90 bridge.

The city will remove tree branches and other low-lying growth, and large rocks will be placed along paths to discourage motor vehicles from entering the park.

The aim is to prevent the crime that takes place in the area's more secluded corners. The park has been known for drug dealing, prostitution and occasional violence.

``It's kind of secluded,'' said Taylor Bressler, park operations manager. ``It's definitely conducive to the activities police are trying to prevent.''

"There was a credible accusation that a city official was breaking the law, and that the police were trying to cover it up. When reporters started asking questions, the city official refused to talk to them and later disappeared without explanation.

Sorry, folks, but to me, that's a story worth pursuing."

I finally agree with you Ken.

The problem is the reporters did not pursue it long enough to get the facts...and S-R ran with it. I wonder if the pressure of knowing another new organization was on it had anything to do with breaking the half-baked yarn of inuendo...(I just cannot bring myself to call it a story)

Bill Morlin and Karen Dorn Steele are become laughing stocks in this town, and rightly so. There used to be a name for this kind of reporting - it was called muck-raking, and it did not reflect well on the ethics of the practitioners. Ken Paulman is apparently the point man trying desperately to put a good spin on this, but the reality is, there was NO story there, no proof of any story there, nothing but innuendo.
As regards High Bridge Park, the media has been very guilty of dragging this place out on slow news days to represent, I suppose, the moral decline of our fair city. To pretend that more sex happens there than happens in the back seats of SUV's parked along Cliff Drive and Palisades Drive is ludicrous - but the people in THOSE cars are not gay. Especially since the introduction of frisbee golf to the park, I can't imagine that there can be any sexual activity in the park, other than the briefest and most furtive, because there are people swarming all over - which, by the way, is a good thing. And theoretically, the park department is supposed to be shutting the expensive gate they have installed to prevent nighttime drivethroughs.
All in all, NO story, lots of innuendo, and the continuing decline of the SR's reputation as a "serious" paper.

In a nutshell, here's how it looks to me: a lot of SPD cops don't like Lynch and they're getting even by dropping some hot gossip. Have Bill Morlin and Karen Dorn Steele ever stopped to question the motivation of their sources? Secondly, the S-R has hit a Libertarian nerve among Spokanites who are very uneasy about a newspaper vehemently insisting that a public official has absolutely no right to privacy, including his medical records. Respecting people's privacy, the right to be left alone, and aversion to snooping are strong characteristics of the Spokane ethos. Enough already; just leave the guy alone.

Well, I'm not even sure where to begin. For starters, lets fire up the wayback machine and take a look at the original Sept. 28 story. Bent, if you'd like to identify for me the specific portions of that story that are not factual, I'm all ears.

I'm also kind of curious about the prong of the attack wherein people insist that there is not a crime problem in High Bridge Park:

I can't imagine that there can be any sexual activity in the park

From the internal affairs report, which I trust everyone has read:

(Sgt. Russ Cox) said the Highbridge Park area had been made a priority ... because of the illegal activities occuring there. Illegal activities include illegal sexual activity, stolen vehicles, lewd conduct and quality of life issues, etc.

And also:

...several days before this date of 8-11, Officer Fausti was on patrol and working in the area of 1st/Cowley. This area is known to be frequented by prostitutes and their "clients." (emphasis mine)

That's according to the SPD. So can we please stop pretending that crime isn't a problem down there?

Moving on.

Let's look at the facts on the ground at the time the Sept. 28 story was published.

1) There is a tip from law enforcement officers that a prominent city official has committed a crime.

2) There are police reports showing the city official's license plates had been run each of the previous two Fridays prior to the time the crime allegedly took place.

3) The city official refuses to answer reporters' questions about the issue.

4) The city official disappears without explanation, only to say he'll be on leave indefinitely.

Obviously, we have to tell the public about #4. Do we also have an obligation to tell the public about 1 through 3? I think we do. Others may disagree. But that issue has been debated into the ground.

And this may come as a shock to Greg Presley, but I'm acting entirely on my own accord (and against my better judgment) by posting to this blog. Nothing I've written has been vetted or approved or encouraged by anyone. I put a lot of energy into keeping this blog going while I was working on the Web site, and I guess old habits are hard to break.

Believe it or not, I've got better things to do. But I take it personally when people call into question the motives and integrity of my colleagues. I'm sure there are other people at the S-R who feel the same way, but for whatever reason, they don't feel as compelled to speak up.

As for me, I think I've spoken my piece.

Ken,
I just want to clarify for you and others that 1st and Cowley is no where near Highbridge Park so your attempt to link Ofc. Fausti's statement to the Highbridge Park area is off base.
At this point I just wish Morlin and Steele would tell the truth about the sequence of events and when they got the information from the alleged law enforcement officers. I guess this transparency thing isn't quite working for y'all is it?

Thanks for the clarification, Kevin - I stand corrected. Cowley is east of downtown. In my haste, I was confusing it with Clarke.

The point still stands, though - the crime problem in High Bridge Park isn't just some fabrication or exaggeration on behalf of the newspaper.

I guess this transparency thing isn't quite working for y'all is it?

I wonder the same thing sometimes, but for different reasons. The point of this was that people in the newsroom could engage with readers about our coverage, but it doesn't seem like anyone else here at the paper is interested in having the conversation.

So, if they don't care, I don't care either.

Hammer away, guys...

Everyone else was doing such a good job defending my hysterical claim that homophobia had something to do with this story that I haven't felt it necessary to chime in. But I do have one more point to make, and in involves the following claim, made by our beloved Mr. Paulman.

There was a credible accusation that a city official was breaking the law, and that the police were trying to cover it up. When reporters started asking questions, the city official refused to talk to them and later disappeared without explanation.

The key word, of course, is "credible," and it makes me wonder very seriously how the newspaper, it's reporters, and everyone involved in this story define credibility. The story as reported defines the rumors inside the police department as "buzz." Here are a few synonyms for that word from Roget's thesaurus:

comment, cry, grapevine*, hearsay, news, on dit, report, rumble*, rumor, scandal, scuttlebutt, talk

And you know what, Ken? You're right. There are no specific portions of the Sept. 28 story that are not factual, but there are plenty of implications that exist primarily to fire up our homo-erotic-o-phobia, and you ought to know that. Here's just one example from that story:

Hession, in a recent interview, said it was his understanding that Lynch had made personal trips to High Bridge Park to see if police had stepped up their patrols of the area, which also is known as a meeting place for gay men. Spokane police launched emphasis patrols to combat drug and other crime problems in August, which continue today.

Please please please don't argue with me about facts, because facts lie just as easily as fictions... often more easily. Facts do not equal truth, and if you want to argue the position that they do, you will likely feel as if you won, but truth will have lost. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and we can make all sorts of observations about this and make claims such as "the sun rotates around the earth" or "we are the center of the universe." More exploration, however, tells us that not only does the earth actually rotate around the sun, but the illusion of the sun's rotation originates with our planet spinning on our own axis. In general, newspaper work doesn't require this much exploration or science, and I would hope the Spokesman-Review would care more about whether they can be as accurate as possible more than they do about whether they can claim dibs on being the first to report on a topic.

By the way, the breaking webnews graphic seems to imply the opposite, and seems nothing more than petty. But that's likely another topic to bring up another day.

Blessings.

Not to beat a dead horse, but several years ago I wrote a letter to members of the city council questioning then-Police Chief Bragdon's decision to put daily patrols of up to 5 policeman to "work" High Bridge Park and Peoples Park, both with undercover entrapment type police and with uniformed cops watching the parks from surrounding hills with binoculars in the hopes of catching someone doing something over a period of 3 months. (I pass this park daily on the way to work, so I was easily able to keep track of the police activity). This was during the period in which the Spokane Police Department could not find enough funds to assign a detective to assist with the serial murder investigation going on at the time (Yates). The Spokesman ran my letter on the front page of the paper (without my knowledge or permission I might add). When I spoke to Bragdon about this in person, I asked specifically to get a number or even a rough estimate of the complaints the police department had received about the park over a fixed period (which could have been 6 months, I can't remember). He not only declined to give me a number, he said, "it really doesn't matter how many complaints, and there have been A COUPLE (my emphasis), it's that we intend to keep making it a priority".

That should tell you everything you need to know both about how many people are actually affected or care about what's going on in High Bridge vs. what the police department and the media make it out to be. There is undoubtedly illegal activity that happens there. As someone who actually uses the park, I can tell you that I have A. Never been offered drugs, and B. I have never seen gay men going over to where families are picnicing and dropping their drawers. I have seen gay people driving through and rolling down their windows to talk to other gay people, with the possible intent of arranging an assignation. Whoopee! I have seen various homeless people scrambling up and down the river banks with tattered blankets, and I have seen the evidence of alcoholics setting up shop there. I know people who live near the new park at the west end of 14th Ave on the South Hill, and they claim that from sunset to sunrise there is constant car traffic and blatant drug-trafficking there. But that doesn't get either media attention or much police attention that I can tell - and the only difference I can quantify is that there is not the added titillation of the idea that gay people might be hooking up there.

Hello? As I asked previously, didn't all this stepped-up police activity have something to do with the disappearance and presumed murder of a man last summer? He was last seen in High Bridge Park, where the perp said he had been picked up by the deceased for gay sex. The suspect used the older man's credit cards and said he murdered the guy and left him "under a bridge" in the Spokane area, but no body has ever been found. Just trying to link cause and effect here, folks. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Actually, Ophelia, the police steps up activity at the park routinely and for no apparent reason. Yes, the murder led to a flurry of activity, which quickly died down when no evidence was found, and then rose again, for no apparent reason later, and then died down, and then rose again, for no apparent reason, and died down....well, you get my point. Bragdon's words to me in the year 2001, were, "we're doing our best to discourage gay people from using High Bridge Park and People's Park, because the Spokane area has a history of skinhead groups (aryan nation) etc, who would love to attack gay people if they were all concentrated in one area". I'm not kidding - that was his stated rationale then - and things have probably not changed significantly.

Here's how the spokesman works. Spokane has very little news of interest so these so-called intrepid reporters have to make up news, even if it discredits the credibility of a city leader. Steele et. al are trying so hard to become the next Woodward...that they focus on non-stories...just like the crack news team at the S-R. It is just pathetic. If that's what you want to do, go to the Washington Post, rather than making things up here. I think the S-R is a second rate paper. Very clear! Gary Graham is a apologist for these lackluster values.

Thanks, Greg, for the info on SPD patrols in High Bridge Park. How noble and enlightened of Bragdon, coming to the rescue and saving gay people from themselves (sarcasm intended, in case anyone thought otherwise). I wonder what the new chief thinks about all this...

Here are the definitions of "homophobia" found at dictionary.com.

1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

2. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.

3. prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

4. irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Terry, doe those fall under your definition when you use the term?

Now, the institution of The Spokesman-Review supports gay marriage, partner benefits and has routinely editorialized in favor of same and against discrimination of gay and lesbian people.

That's an odd stance for a homophobic institution. But that's the editorial board, not the news section.

So perhaps your point in using that term, Terry, is that the reporters are homophobes? Or the folks directing coverage are? Or, they're just too stupid to see what is going on here with the coverage?

Isn't it possible that the problems you see with the coverage have nothing to do with homophobia?

We heard the same term tossed around during the West stories. Didn't make sense to me then either

OK Paulman let's talk facts. You outlined a few so let's start there:

You said: "1) There is a tip from law enforcement officers that a prominent city official has committed a crime."

OK, the only fact here is you got a tip, so what? It's a tip, so you assign a reporter to surface the facts -- preferably on the record.

You said: "2) There are police reports showing the city official's license plates had been run each of the previous two Fridays prior to the time the crime allegedly took place."

Sure the reports also say that only one man was seen in the vehicle and that he did not appear to be Jack Lynch...on either occasion.

Furthermore, why is that news? Seems like standard routine for that area, why would this surprise anyone?

This truly is the only fact you had, but you had no FACTUAL explanation of this fact in any of your stories once you dismissed the FACT that Jack said he was checking to see if his orders to step up patrols in the park were being carried out, which seems entirely plausible to me, but obviously not to the SR.

You said: "3) The city official refuses to answer reporters' questions about the issue."

Nice try, there! The city most certainly did answer the questions. Mr. Lynch was on leave, so the only one left to answer the questions was Mayor Hession.

In fact, your paper has even reported repeatedly that the city answered the questions, but the reporters went on to insinuate that the answers were a veiled attempt to hide the real facts. Even Steve Smith has come on this blog and stated clearly that he felt the answers provided by the city were unacceptable based on what he and the reporters knew to be the "real truth."

The only FACT that I can see here is that Hession's answers didn't jive the tips you were getting so the city's answers were dismissed as a covering up the "Real Facts." Did you guys even question the validity of the tip at this point? I certainly would have doubled back on my source at this point and demanded answers.

You said: "4) The city official disappears without explanation, only to say he'll be on leave indefinitely."

Nope! You cannot make this statement FACTUALLY either. The ONLY response the city can LEGALLY give you is that Jack Lynch is on medical leave, and by federal law he is not required to give the reason (and we all know there are many very good reasons for that).

Furthermore, his doctor HAS specified the time frame -- albeit, not as quickly as the SR wanted the information, but the FACT is he has stated an approximate time frame for Lynch's return. And before you even go there, it is quite conceivable to the average person that a doctor might be hard pressed to give specific time frames for recovery when it comes to many ailments.

The SR has presented no other FACTUAL information on this matter and to insinuate otherwise is simply preposterous.

Now let's look at a couple of facts that the SR seems very unwilling to clarify:

1) The SR is aware of the history Jack Lynch has with his heart -- yet you omit that very well documented fact in each and every story that mentions his "unexplained" medical leave.

If I were going to speculate on why he is on leave, my mind goes there first -- certainly to a black eye or cracked rib he says he sustained in bicycle accident. Why is that so hard for you folks to clarify?

2) Jack Lynch claimed to be in Montana on one of those dates in question. Someone posting on this Blog when the original innuendo was published verified that, IN FACT, Jack Lynch was in Montana.

Why hasn't the SR checked that out, and if they have, why hasn't that fact been clarified in any of the stories?

I am truly disheartened with the last story Morlin wrote on this...it just read like Morlin was going down in flames and trying desperately to save face. Sad. Really.

At this point the only real story the SR has an obligation to report pertaining to this mess is to ferret out who these two individuals who misrepresented themselves as Spokane Police Officers. That seems like a crime to me. On top of that, it appears they proceeded to lie to reporters about the alleged criminal behavior of their administrator -- if they were in fact cops, it seems to me there may be some criminal, or at least civil, breech of the law there as well.

You know my Dad always said "Humans only have two hands, so you can't save your face and your a** at the same time."

Are you guys going to suck it up and report the real story now, or what?

1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

2. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling.

3. prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

4. irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Terry, doe those fall under your definition when you use the term?

Now, the institution of The Spokesman-Review supports gay marriage, partner benefits and has routinely editorialized in favor of same and against discrimination of gay and lesbian people.

That's an odd stance for a homophobic institution.

To sum up, The Spokesman is homophobic and so are you, but you just recognize it.

I can't judge the latter, but you're wrong about the former. And thanks for cutting off conversation with comments like:

"You can answer X, but it will still be Y."

Mighty tolerant of you.

Why so gruff with your response? It's not as if I accused you of parking your SUV in highbridge park.

you're wrong about the former

"You can answer X, but it will still be Y."

Thanks for bringing up one of my favorite words, by the way. Tolerance of gender or class or race is one thing--and makes no claim to an absense of fear or phobia--but tolerance of slanderous character assassination is quite another, and you're right. I'm intolerant as all hell.

By the way. You might as well shut down the News is a Conversation blog. It doesn't look as if anybody at the paper gives a damn anyway.