Yikes! How's this for a correction? On Monday, May 5, 2008, the Los Angeles Times published an article about adults dealing with the death of their parents. The main subject of the article was a Dr. Larry Graber, a psychotherapist from Santa Monica.
In the second paragraph of the piece, the Times wrote,
As second-generation Jewish immigrants, Graber's parents were frugal and had worked their way into the upper middle class by running pawn shops. Becoming a psychotherapist and living openly as a gay man, Graber had challenged many of their expectations.
The problem? Graber isn't gay.
Here's the correction from the Times today:
Adult orphans: An article in Monday's Health section that was part of a package on how people handle their parents' deaths focused on Larry Graber, a Santa Monica psychotherapist whose parents died within six months of each other in 2000. Although the article said Graber is an openly gay man, Graber is heterosexual. The reporter misunderstood the name of his partner and misinterpreted references in the conversation, and incorrectly assumed Graber to be gay.
Discuss?
HT: LA Observed.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not that there is anything
May 9, 2008 - 14:04 ET by Chris NormanNot that there's anything wrong with that - if he was - which he isn't - but if he was - there wouldn't - oh, hell - sue them.
He's not gay
May 9, 2008 - 14:55 ET by jefflebowskibut maybe he's willing to give it a chance?
Not that there's anything wrong with that
May 9, 2008 - 15:03 ET by HypocriteHaterClassic example of a Seinfeld episode coming to life, including the misinterpretation from the reporter about his "partner".
Better accused gay falsely than homophobic.
May 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by needleThat is the really neat thing about the LAT faux pas. If Graber were to sue the LAT over this, they would crucify him for being homophobic.
See, it is true; the media is a power unto itself.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Two words
May 9, 2008 - 14:05 ET by MassConservFreudian slip.
Wonder if the Times reporter still feels empathy for the poor guy.
"Although the article said
May 9, 2008 - 14:04 ET by Killgrave"Although the article said Graber is an openly gay man, Graber is heterosexual."
...not that there is anything wrong with it!!
There. I got that out of the way.
How does a reporter
May 9, 2008 - 14:07 ET by bigtimerHow does a reporter misinterpret a conversation or not know for sure who the person is that the guy says he lives with before putting ink to the story? Plus how does the reporter put on the story that Graber lived as an openly gay man if he never has been gay? Makes absolutely no sense here.
The reporter should be fired.
Assumptions are no excuse for this flimsy work, seems the reporter has an agenda somehow....
Could be a law-suit a coming...lol.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I agree, bt...
May 9, 2008 - 14:14 ET by motherbeltI agree, bt...
He not only said he was gay, but he said he was openly gay. How do you make a mistake like that? Even if it was a guy shareing his apartment or house, you don't assume they are "partners"!
However, if he sues, how would he claim damages, since being gay doesn't carry the stigma that it used to? The reporter could just say it was a mistake; no harm done.
"...but he said he was
May 9, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Killgrave"...but he said he was openly gay. How do you make a mistake like that?"
Well, at least the reporter didn't say "flaming". That would've opened up a whole other can of worms.
And no one has made the crack yet that the LAT was simply setting the record STRAIGHT. Get it? Str.. Hehe..
okay, is it time to go home yet..?
It's okay. I feel your
May 9, 2008 - 16:56 ET by CortillaenIt's okay. I feel your pun, er, pain.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Being in LA
May 9, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Eileen RightThis taking place in LA, I doubt he'd lose clients and he would probably be in demand around Westwood.
If he's with the LA Times,
May 9, 2008 - 19:20 ET by bretzysdudeIf he's with the LA Times, he'll be promoted rather than fired at least promoting the gay agenda.
bretz... LOL... Point
May 9, 2008 - 19:27 ET by bigtimerbretz...
LOL...
Point well made there...wouldn't doubt it a bit.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
and incorrectly assumed
May 9, 2008 - 14:09 ET by motherbeltand incorrectly assumed Graber to be gay.
No that there's anything wrong with that!!!! (Seinfeld)
"The reporter misunderstood
May 9, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Killgrave"The reporter misunderstood the name of his partner and misinterpreted references in the conversation, and incorrectly assumed Graber to be gay."
This dingbat reporter needs to get his/her gaydar fixed. I'm guessing it was an act of wishful thinking. The subject being gay somehow would've made this story more "edgy" and "sexy".
Seriously, I wonder if gay people find this patronizing?
Why so anxious to portray
May 9, 2008 - 14:31 ET by mattmWhy so anxious to portray someone as 'gay,' if not as part of the continued pro-gay propaganda campaign the Left has been engaged in for the last several decades?
mattm: I don't think there's
May 9, 2008 - 14:49 ET by Killgravemattm:
I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think that a typical libiot is way too anxious to prove to their collective that they are "tolerant" and "progressive".
If this moron reporter was happy simply BEING an open-minded person, and not so desperate to PROVE it, then he/she wouldn't have made this stupid assumption, or engaged in wishful thinking in order to sex up a story.
And come to think of it... isn't it the first priority for a reporter is to LISTEN to their subjects, weed out the FACTS, and avoid assumptions at all costs? This "journalist" seriously needs to be fired.
You could be right about
May 9, 2008 - 15:00 ET by mattmYou could be right about this particular reporter/artist, but I still say there is a concerted effort to promote the gay agenda in the news media, the entertainment media and in our schools.
Not that an explanation is needed, but this is not "gay-bashing," it's merely an observation.
Everybody's gay!
May 9, 2008 - 14:50 ET by CrashTalk about trying to set the record "straight."
Excellent - I wish I'd
May 9, 2008 - 15:01 ET by Chris NormanExcellent - I wish I'd thought of that. :)
The real issue - IMHO
May 9, 2008 - 14:49 ET by PeevedGuyThe real issue here is not necessarily how much of an idiot the reporter is for assuming that Garber is gay, but the fact that is has no relevance to the story. How would his being gay bring any more to the table as far as the story is concerned? I thought the story was about adults dealing with the loss of parents? Are gays better or worse than straights at that type of thing? Are only gay people allowed to use those drums? It's a throwaway line.
Furthermore, the writer says the doc is gay and then goes on to say "Graber had challenged many of their expectations. But he never stopped wanting to please them.". So the writer just assumes that not only is the doctor gay, but that his parents disapproved of that lifestyle (making the doctor work that much harder to gain their approval). I have news for Ms. Healy, not all parents would necessarily shut out their kids for being gay. Just becasue you think people are homophobic, doesn't mean they are.
My sentiments exactly...I
May 9, 2008 - 15:17 ET by taterMy sentiments exactly...I mean you wouldn't have a story talking about someone grieving over their parents and then the line saying "Johnny, who is openly straight." It doesn't add anything to the story.
Or another example: To have a scandal story about a politican and add what their party affiliation is. Whoops, that's just for democrats :) .
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
it does not say what name
May 9, 2008 - 15:03 ET by TjexciteThere are many names that does not tell of gender
Jamie, Jody, Kim, Dana, Bobby, Sam, Chris, Erin or Aaron ... ect
Just shows that they see a name and think he has to be an open gay and no need to dig any deeper. His sexuality has no basis on coping with loss it just shows that to the author (not reporter) thinks that being gay will cause one to cope with loss different than being hetero. Which it does not.. Wonder if the title would have read "Being gay helps deal with parents' death" to show details that have need not be disclosed.
Maybe,
May 9, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Eileen RightIt's PAT!!!
ref SNL
Pat
May 9, 2008 - 23:14 ET by saw the light"It's time for androgeny. It's just Pat!"
Too bad Al Franken didn't play that character!
Given the often
May 9, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Republic1Given the often sanctimonious tone of the LA Times, and their unwillingness to admit their own bias or mistakes, I'm surprised the correction didn't include this paragraph:
'While the subject of the article is not openly homosexual, the editors believe that he very likely harbors repressed homosexual desires, and therefore our reporter was technically incorrect only in the use of the word "openly". In addition, we find his objection to being outed troubling. It is a fact that anyone who objects to being identified as homosexual has at least some degree of hostility toward homosexuals. The subject of the article surely got this attitude from his hate-filled and intolerant upper middle class parents. Times editors hope that he can address his flawed and intolerant view of his fellow man, and embrace nature's rich sexual diversity, rather than attacking flawless reporting.'
And I feel the need to state for the record, the preceding was satiric.
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -Muhammad
And these idiots wonder why
May 9, 2008 - 23:41 ET by SvenAnd these idiots wonder why a large segment of the population accuse them of having an agenda...or two!
I love it!! Let the circulation of MSM print news outlets continue their downward sprial!