Alex Blaze

The News-Sentinel hit piece on a high school sophomore

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 02, 2007 9:19 AM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: fort wayne news-sentinel, Kevin Leininger, Megan Chase, tim hardaway, woodlan high school

There's just so much wrong with this.

The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel has published a column that shows that some high school students are way more advanced than their surrounding community of adults. Remember that high school editorial that said it was OK to be gay that made the principal of the school so ticked off that he threatened to fire the newspaper's faculty adviser and is now reading every paper to make sure that the homosexual agenda can't get in it again? Well, a local paper has decided that it's time that these uppity high school students, like Megan Chase, learned a lesson about the real world of journalism - stupid editorialists who can't think of anything else to write about are willing to make fun of anyone to keep their jobs. Consider this:

The column that started the controversy was, despite its immaturity, more persuasive.
Besides the fact that Kevin Leininger, the author of the News-Sentinel editorial, never says what it's more persuasive than, he has to call the writing of a high schoool student immature. Apparently irony is lost on this man.

I guess I shouldn't have expected any more from an editorial that started with a pretty ridiculous statement like this:

Even experienced professional journalists, it seems, don't quite know what to do with the always-volatile combination of homosexuality and religion.
Yes, of course, because there's no such thing as a religious queer person. Nope, the MCC doesn't exist, and neither do Dignity or GLBT Jews. He goes on to pull the Christian oppression card and say that Chase was intolerant of religion, I guess because beating up on gays and lesbians is a religious practice, a stationery pilgrimage, if you will, where the beater uses the GLBT punching bag as a means of transcending the every-day for a spiritual connection with God. It makes so much sense now!

But the crux of his argument is here:

But by printing Chase's column, the Tomahawk has obligated itself to print an opposing viewpoint if given the opportunity.
This assumes a lot of things. Like that people who are OK with gay people are on the same logical or moral footing as heterosexual supremacists. There's this idea that "fair and balanced" implies that there has to be equal time given to each side of an argument, even when there really isn't another side. For example, if the newspaper did an editorial that says that cheating on tests is wrong, do they have to publish another one that says that cheating is good? If the newspaper published an editorial saying that vandalism on the school hurts all the students, does it have an obligation to print one entitled "Horray for Vandalism"? And if the paper says that there will be corn dogs and fries for lunch today, does it have an obligation to also say that there will be whatever the opposite of corn dogs and fries is (hamburgers and raw potatoes?) even if there won't be?

Maybe I was wrong in saying that was the crux of his argument, because it's just so wrong. Maybe Leininger is just so mature in his writing for fifteen years for the News-Sentinel that what he said went above my head. I wish we had a resident NBA player here at Bilerico to translate Leininger's editorial...

You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.
Oh now I get it! Thanks, Tim!

h/t to Advance Indiana


Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


It is important to recognize the two equivalent rights at play here because they recur in arguments that we have daily:
To illustrate them with an example from a discussion I had about 18 months ago, there is the freedom for two male partners or two female partners to hold hands on campus. That freedom is, in some perfect world that torments our opponents, established, or at least vigorously defended. But the opposing, equivalent right is ignored. That is the right of Christians to prevent those couples from dignified (or any) displays of affection.

Our opponents, the opponents of equality, equal justice under law, freedom of religion, an independent judiciary, and most of the ideas that make America what it is, really do equate those two rights in their minds. It helps that they do not examine their own positions, preferring to increase the volume rather than the logic.

"Everyone knows that its right, if it's loud." --Artisan