Your conflicted/ambivalent news of the day

[Martinus]

The Huffington Post is turning into the Daily Mail. It is against press principles to mention details that are irrelevant to the story and might prejudice readers. For the fact he was gay to be in the headline and opener is inexcusable unless he killed himself over some anti-gay policy, but that obviously isn't the case. I've read whole articles in even our least salubrious newspapers and been pleasantly surprised when they mention a same-sex partner at the end without the sexuality of the subject being mentioned.

It's ok to pander to the reader's prejudices, if you are doing it from the "stupid Uncle Toms" left wing perspective. 

Exempli gratia:

"Stupid blacks voted for Obama" <- Racism.
"Stupid blacks voted for Prop 8" <- Anti-racist commentary on the patriarchal system keeping racial minorities ignorant and uneducated.

[Capetan Mihali]

I liked the note, though:  "Do not revive!  Fuck Obama!" pretty much says it all.

[The Larch]

The Huffington Post is turning into the Daily Mail. It is against press principles to mention details that are irrelevant to the story and might prejudice readers. For the fact he was gay to be in the headline and opener is inexcusable unless he killed himself over some anti-gay policy, but that obviously isn't the case. I've read whole articles in even our least salubrious newspapers and been pleasantly surprised when they mention a same-sex partner at the end without the sexuality of the subject being mentioned.

But the article that started the thread is not from the Huffington Post, it's from a gay news portal. Saying that the guy that killed himself was gay is their justification for talking about it in the first place.

[Eddie Teach]

Shoulda lit himself on fire if he really wanted to stick it to Obama.

[garbon]

The Huffington Post is turning into the Daily Mail. It is against press principles to mention details that are irrelevant to the story and might prejudice readers. For the fact he was gay to be in the headline and opener is inexcusable unless he killed himself over some anti-gay policy, but that obviously isn't the case. I've read whole articles in even our least salubrious newspapers and been pleasantly surprised when they mention a same-sex partner at the end without the sexuality of the subject being mentioned.

But the article that started the thread is not from the Huffington Post, it's from a gay news portal. Saying that the guy that killed himself was gay is their justification for talking about it in the first place.

And Marti's.

[Josephus]

OK...I missed that it came from a gay newspaper.

But in that case, wouldn't it be obvious he was gay. They wouldn't write that story if he wasn't. It's a bit redundant.

Years ago, Monty Python had a skit "news for birds".

"No birds were killed in a plane crash that killed 200 humans."

[garbon]

I'm glad to know that Pink News isn't up to your editorial standards.