Home / Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts: The Story of John Dale

Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts: The Story of John Dale

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I’m sure that by this point you all realize where I stand on homosexuality, gay marriage, and other conservative issues.

Anyway, I’m a writer for the UCR Highlander, the University newspaper, and as such I need to be non-biased.

Even though I am politically-opposed to the event/person I was covering, I tried my best to be impartial. This event, in particular, was a speech by John Dale, the Boy Scout who was expelled for being a homosexual.

I just wanted some feedback on both the writing style and the intended impartiality:

Published in the UCR Highlander – 11/14/05
BYLINE: Ryan Clark Holiday – Staff Writer

Gay-rights activist and famous former Boy Scout John Dale took the center podium in the University Lecture Hall at UCR, much like he did five years ago in front of the United States Supreme Court.

He spoke of tolerance and equality – two ideas that he felt were not reciprocated to him by the Boy Scouts of America – to a relatively small crowd last Thursday. His message holds an implied and inspiring credibility after a nearly decade-long fight in various courts across the nation.

“In 1978, I joined the Boy Scouts. In 1990 I was expelled, and in 2000 it went all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Dale.

The no-frills summary with which he began his speech did little justice to the complexities and evolving viewpoints of the parties involved.

Joining the Scouts as an 8 year-old, Dale traveled up the program’s ranks to the status of Eagle Scout, leaving behind a trail of merit badges, honors, and awards. Like other boys, he relished in the organization’s communal structure.

“I didn’t know I was gay, but I knew I wanted to fit in,” Dale said.

Unlike some modern day Dred Scott, his experiences in the Scouts were, in fact, genuine. He claims not to have joined as a part of a social experiment, or with the intent of radically shaping the institution from the inside.

“I didn’t set out to do anything,” Dale said. “I didn’t think the rest of my life would be defined by the experience I had in the Scouts.”

He continued to remain involved in the organization significantly longer than most, finding a position as a leader after obtaining the highest rank. Even as the uniform lost its “coolness,” he stuck with it while in college.

It was in this transitional period that he admitted to himself that he was a homosexual. Fortunately, though, he came from loving family who accepted, at least to a certain extent, this change.

“They didn’t disown me or kick me out of the house but they had to work with it,” he said.

This reaction, however, stands in stark contrast with the reception received from the Boy Scouts. Upon learning of his involvement with homosexual organizations at his college campus and self-declared affiliation as one himself, they penned a letter expelling him, without explanation, from the organization.

A subsequent letter addressed the issue in blunt and certain terms, announcing that “known homosexuals are not allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts of America.” The organization, which had, as of 1990, been relatively quiet on the issue, cited several factors.

The Scout’s code recited by all members preaches the virtues of morality and cleanliness, terms that leaders feel clearly contradict those of homosexuals. In fact, the wording of the motto literally contains the phrase keeping oneself “morally straight.”

Dale, on the other hand, disagrees.

“To me, that does not say you cannot be gay,” Dale said.

Instead, he argues, that the startlingly more controversial position of open gayness in the late 80’s had more to do with it.

“In 1990, gays were a lot less visible. There was no ‘Ellen’ or ‘Will and Grace,’ it was hidden,” Dale said. “Back then, people thought gay meant AIDS.”

It was in this that Dale felt he could make a difference. With homosexuality as a taboo topic, it took a frontal assault on political correctness to finally push the issue into the public discourse.

“It forced people to deal with the issue of gay discrimination. People have to now think about things they didn’t want to think about,” Dale said.

Students agreed with this approach, and appreciated his sacrifice for such a socially-important cause.

“As a gay-rights activist myself, I found it inspiring to see someone struggle and then to triumph,” first-year political science and languages Samantha Wilson said.

Triumph, however, in its literal sense, was actually awarded to the Boy Scouts of America. Dale lost his suit against the organization in a 5-4 vote by the United States Supreme Court.

“The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection,” wrote the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in his majority opinion.

Nevertheless, Dale urged students to continue to fight either for his cause or another, so long as they spoke “from the heart.” In his final words, he proposed that society can be changed.

“You don’t realize the power you have. I encourage you to stand up and speak out. Now is the time for full equality.”

You can see more here:

Ed: RJ

Powered by

About ChaunceyBillups

  • Actually, you need to be unprejudiced, not unbiased. You’re not there yet…

    You might want to look at your spelling and layout skillz too.

  • Not to mention some of his analogies and wording. You seem at one point to be saying that Dred Scott’s experiences of slavery were not real and that he was just trying to cause trouble. That seems bizarre and incomprehensible.

    “he relished in the organization’s communal structure”

    There shouldn’t be an ‘in’ after ‘relished’. Sounds like you were thinking ‘reveled in’.

    But as for bias, I don’t see it as particularly biased. Did you get some negative feedback to that effect?


  • Dave, that was a change made by an editor. i had no idea it was even made

    What I meant by the Dred Scott case was that the situation was a naturally occuring one, rather than an issue pushed and created by a social advocacy group. The intent was simply to inform the reader that he geninuely loved the boy scouts, and was not attempting to infliltrate them for personal gain.


  • Ryan, every one who knows me would tell you that the least effective way to keep me quiet you could ever come up with is to tell me to shut up.

    Setting your arrogant rudeness aside, you asked for opinions and, even though I find your political and social views morally and practically repugnant on almost every level, I took some time out of my one life to try to help you.

    It’s a simple matter of fact that to be pre-judiced means you have made your mind up in advance, regardless of the facts, like a judge or jury that’s going to find someone guilty regardless of the evidence.

    To be biased means to be inclined in favour of one side but still calling the case on its merits, like a judge/jury that wanted to convict but found the evidence lacking. The choice you make will either turn you into a journalist or a propagandist.

    As to the article, despite your prejudices, there was nothing more than a possible hint or nuance of bias in one sentence but otherwise it was indeed fair journalism.

    Further points for consideration are the art of incorporating context into the work. You assumed that your readers would know what happened with his appearance in front of the Supreme Court and maybe in your college they would but not necessarily here. Ditto the Dred Scott reference. Context is helpful and adds to the credibility, depth and resonance of a story.

    Finally, triple spacing between paragraphs? I think not.

    7/10 for journalism, 3/10 for attitude. Re-do.

  • I happen to disagree with the BS’s expulsion of homosexuals, but I do believe they have a legal right to do so.

    The triple spacing was an html error, has nothing to do with the published piece.

    Where did I assume they would know what happened? I QUOTED THE DECISION.

  • Ryan: So you support discrimination?

    I can’t imagine any sane universe in which it should be possible to exclude anybody from something on the basis of their personal life, not unless it was something like child abuse or something like that.

    Just look at yourself, you’re a reactionary right winger, you’re still growing up and you hate gays and abortion. By my personal reckoning that automatically condemns you to the life of a garbage or sewer worker – for ever – for being a bigoted busybody, but I’m not actually looking to enforce such a policy in real life because I respect your right to live your life the way you want.

    You try and put anyone down, you make it okay for others to do the same, monkey see, monkey do; so you might want to think more carefully just where you want to point your sights, lest one day you’re the target. It’s called tolerance…

    And the Supreme Court thing? You wrote: “Gay rights activist and famous former Boy Scout John Dale took the center podium in the University Lecture Hall at UCR, much like he did five years ago in front of the United States Supreme Court.” And then went back to his visit to your college. In Para 1 !

    True you went back to the subject later – but it’s not the reader’s responsibility to stitch snippets together, rather the author’s to write a properly structured piece that, if you like, holds the reader’s hand and leads s/he through the story.

  • you can’t force the klan to allow blacks into their meetings.

  • Anthony Grande


    You hypocrite, don’t you claim that a gay males orientation is NATURALLY toward another male? And you want to put gay males, whose “orientation is towards other males, by themeselves with BOYS out in the woods?

    Man! That is like you saying that we should allow a straight man by himself with a whole bunch of little girls out in the woods.

  • RYAN: Isn’t the clan an illegal hate organisation? I’d lock them all up so there wouldn’t be any meetings to attend.

    Not that any black people would want to go, the dress code is horrendous…

    ANTHONY: Why wouldn’t you allow such trips to the woods? Not everyone is as deranged or uncontrolled as you seem to think. Maybe it’s you?

  • Anthony Grande

    “Isn’t the clan an illegal hate organisation? I’d lock them all up so there wouldn’t be any meetings to attend.”

    What ever happened to the liberal’s beloved free speech?

    “Why wouldn’t you allow such trips to the woods? Not everyone is as deranged or uncontrolled as you seem to think. Maybe it’s you?”

    So Alienboy, would you let a straight man go out alone in the woods with some little girls?

  • Anthony:

    1. I’m not a liberal, free speech has limits.

    2. Sure, why not?

  • Anthony Grande

    Not a liberal, eh?

    Yeah there are no self proclaimed liberals at Blogcritics. Reasons why you are a liberal:

    1) You have no problem with a man taking a whole bunch of little girls in the woods.

    2) You call it discrimination when we say that a man who proclaims to have an orientation to males can go out into the woods with little boys.

    3) You deny that the Palestinians want to destroy the Jews and say that there is nothing wrong at all with the Palestinians and that they are peaceful people.

    4) You want to uphold Roe v. Wade.

    5) You support gay marriage.

    6) You do not support the war on terror.

    7) There are probabaly many more issues that you believe in that are on the left from looking at these issues.

    Why can’t a man go out in the woods with a little girl?

    Guess what? Mankind is not even close to perfect. We cannot assume that nothing will happen when that man gets up there with those little innocent girls who don’t understand everything yet (if you know what I mean).

  • Bennett

    Assume the worst, eh?

    Is #7 actually one of your points, or did you get carried away with the whole “numbered” thing?

    Sweeping generalizations. Remember AG? The product of a weak mind.

  • No, I’m not a liberal at all and, if you took the trouble to check, you’d see that there is not that much that’s too liberal about BC. I reckon the majority of us are right centre and I think Christians too, though that doesn’t come up much.

    However, we are tolerant of a lot of different views and I’m personally extremely proud of that. It’s why I neglect my personal and professional lives to help it grow on a volunteer basis, as do the others. It’s also why you’re still here, that tolerance.

    Your points were:

    1. No, I don’t have a problem with the idea of adults supervising children and their activities. What’s your plan? Send the children off on their own? Ludicrous.

    2. Yes, that is discrimination.

    3. A significant vocal minority are chanting that in the streets of the arab world. What do you expect them to do? Go round saying “Oh America, how we love that you finance Israel’s aggression against us, allow Israel to flout UN resolutions unchallenged and fail to use your power as the world’s policeman to establish a Palestinian state and extinguish one of the most powerful causes of anti-US sentiment in the world?”

    That doesn’t mean that all Palestinians want to see Israel and the Jews wiped off the map, which was your original claim. Nor does it mean that I am anti-USA. Laughable.

    4. I don’t live in the USA. I don’t care about Roe v Wade. I care about the fact that it is completely wrong for one group of people to try and force their views onto others, so it is none of your business what other people do in their lives.

    5. I don’t care what people are doing in their private lives. I do hope they’re happy.

    6. It’s not a war. War was never declared. There was a debatable case for going in to Afghanistan and none for Iraq. To seriously propose that Al Qaeda poses a credible threat to the ongoing future of the USA is absurd. I’m sure if in some distant unlikely future California invades wherever it is you live, you’d be out terrorising the gay cali pinkoes in an instant. Terrorism is a situational response, not a preferred lifestyle.

    7. There you go, run out of anything sensible to say and come up with some sweeping generalisation. What an insight!

    As to your closing remarks, I think that they say more about you than this imaginary predator in the woods. The vast majority of people all over the world just want to get on with their lives in peace, to enjoy their brief (secular) miracle of living. You just sound paranoid.

    As far as I know, the majority (or at least the majority we hear of in Europe) of sex crimes against children in the USA have been committed by Christian clergymen not Boy Scouts.

    Anything else?

  • 1. You twisted my words. I said that you say that a straight man can lead a group of little girls into the woods. Then you go on about how adults have the right to supervise children. Well duh!!! Someone has to supervise them and say that a person of the same sex should only be alone with them or if you will of the same “sexual orientation”.

    2. This argument can easily be joined with one.

    2. I am not talking about the ones in the streets. I am talking about all of them. I’ll bet that if you went to Palestine and asked 100 random Arabs if they would support exile or death to all the Jews in the Holy Land that over 80 would say, “By Allah, YES!”

    And we’re funding aggression of the Israelis towards the Palestinians? Are playing with me? What aggression?

    4. If I argue about this one I would be accussed of changing the subject once again. Let’s just leave murder for the other threads.

    5. It isn’t private when they force laws in our land and scream and call us names and such.

    6. Do you support the overthrow of Saddam? Yes or No?

  • Bennett

    Take a pill.

  • Anthony Grande

    Oh…wait a minute, stop all arguments we got a little problem here.

    ‘”I’m sure if in some distant unlikely future California invades wherever it is you live, you’d be out terrorising the gay cali pinkoes in an instant.”

    And I am the one who assumes and “generalizes”?

    “gay cali pinkoes”, eh? You think everyone in California is either gay or a pinko or a movie star. You really need to read something, man.

    I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA and I am a Conservative and let me walk outside for a second and look around. O.K. I am back and I didn’t see any gay parades so I must be lost or something.

    Now back to the Palestine/Israel issue. You say it is a natural reaction to go blow someone up just because you feel that they are inferior and you don’t like them.

    Palestine would get their independence if it weren’t for the fact that they won’t stop there. They want to have ALL of Israel to themeselves.

    I and some other people would like for California to split in two seperate states because the Northern half dominates over us. Do you believe that we should also call for a complete evacuation of ALL Northerners and have California ALL to ourselves? Do you think it would be a natural thing for me do if I strapped a bomb to myself and blew up some school children in San Fransisco or San Jose?

    P.S. please, if you don’t know enough about this country and actually believe that ALL liberals live in Cali and ALL conservatives live in Texas then don’t post about us.

  • ANTHONY: You really are getting yourself all twisted up here.

    Trying to deal with your “points” in order:

    In #15/1, you complained about me twisting your words, but I didn’t. What I did was to reject your offensive and simply plain wrong idea that gay people can’t be trusted to look after children on the grounds of possible sexual predation.

    This is either basic ignorance or stupidity on your part. Gay people have sex with people of the same gender, paedophiles are the ones that want to have sex with children. The majority of paedophiles are heterosexual.

    15/2: Yes, it is STILL discrimination.

    15/3: Go back and re-read my 14/3, repeatedly. Chant it till it sinks in to your remarkably stubborn set of prejudice and presumption.

    15/4: You already brought up the subject of abortion. I was responding to your offensive comments on that. Maybe you’re learning to walk away from a stupid point of view.

    15/5: I said it’s none of your business what other people do in their private lives. Everybody has the right to campaign for better treatment and rights. You are the one that is doing all the screaming and name-calling.

    15/6: I support the replacement of all fascists and bullies like Saddam. But if the USA was sincere in its bid to improve the world, it would have a long list of countries to invade or reform.

    What about the military junta that is in power in Burma and terrorising its population. What about the many corrupt regimes doing similar things throughout the African continent?

    Saddam was definitely not a good leader of his people – though he did a great job for the Baathists – and it’s good he’s no longer in power. That does NOT justify the fact the USA did not have a credible cause to invade Iraq. The country lashed out after 9/11 and took revenge, plain and simple. First in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The first may have been tolerable, the second never.

    Bush and his cronies never even had the integrity to declare war, they weaseled their way through under the bs flag of executive action, knowing full well that their now proven to be false arguments for going to war would not stand up in a “war” scenario. So they were cowards twice over, preferring to invade a convenient scapegoat that presented no significant military obstacle rather than deal with the actual reality.

    In summary, none of your specious arguments stand up to scrutiny. As a Republican, you’ll already be used to that…

    Moving on to your #17: Sorry, I didn’t know you lived in California.

    In that case, change the name of the state in my #14/6 to any other US state you like. You’d still be out there, fighting for your freedom and prepared to do whatever it took to save your family, friends, state, right? Or would you be a collaborator with this theoretical invader? The “gay, commie pinkoes” thing was just a joke, I don’t actually believe it!

    Your remarks about Palestine in the second half of #17 are simply incomprehensible. I didn’t say “You say it is a natural reaction to go blow someone up just because you feel that they are inferior and you don’t like them.” I said what I said in #14/3; you won’t find those words there cos you just made them up.

    I hope that you would indeed have the courage to fight to protect your state if it was one day under attack, as it has in the past.

    PS: I have the right to say what I want, abnout anything I want. It’s called freedom of expression.

    How amusing that you, a proud Republican, just attempted to take away my rights whilst simultaneously exercising your right to talk absolute nonsense.

    Please, if YOU don’t have any coherent points to make, stop insulting people’s intelligence with the shockingly poorly presented case you have sloppily thrown together here and go educate yourself a bit.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    You asked for comments on the article based on whether it seemed to reflect your opinions – or whether it upheld a standard of “objective reporting” that you aspire to.

    In essence, you were asking to be critiqued on the piece without getting into a food fight over the issue involved.

    In your writing, you did not appear to reveal prejudice or bias for or against one side or another. That was my perception. I think you needed to lay out the ideas a bit more carrefully, and to give a little more context in precisely the areas that Alienboy suggested.

    A point of exactitude here. In the overwheming majority of the cases argued before the Supreme Court neither appellant or appellee argues the case himself before the bench. His attorneys do. Thus, John Dale did not take center stage in front of the Supreme Court – his attorney did. The attorney speaks for the client – and so in newspaper accounts, it is reported that the client spoke. But rarely does the client himself speak to the assembled bench. When he does, he is acting as his own attorney.

    I will note as well that Alienboy’s initial comments (#4 and parts of #6) were attempts to help you with your writing. He was critiquing your work, which is what you asked him to do.

    You ought to have said that the piece had already been published, or if it hadn’t, that you no longer had editorial control of it. Alienboy’s critique might have been different.

    Bear in mind that my views on this issue are a little closer to yours and I was looking for the least sign of anti-gay rhetoric in the article.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Shalóm u’vrakhá (peace and be blessed) to Alienboy

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    A final note. I mentioned the fact that the attorney speaks before the assembled bench of judges because your article talked about John Dale himself (and not his attorney) taking center stage at your university.

    Just trying to be clear here.

  • RUVY:
    I have been repeatedly delighted to observe the way you are able to diffentiate between your passionately held personal views and the issues themselves. It is a credit to you and a great example for all of us. Do you have a blog of your own?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Thanks for the kind words.

    Yes, I do, but there is not much to it yet. I’m not yet comfortable with the technology of the blog. I haven’t figured out how to work the spell check on line here, for example. I hope to post several more pieces to Blog Crtics in a day or two, all of which will be at my blog site as well.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    And now for the food fight.

    Anthony you are ranting away about all sorts of different issues attacking liberalism and such. Why waste your time? Link you points of view. There is a common tie.

    This is the common tie.

    A herd of cattle farting in Amazonia in a cleared jungle affects you in California, me in Israel, Alienboy in Europe, Dave Nalle in Texas and Mark Schannon on the east coast of your country, not to mention the young lady writing from Ireland.

    First of all, aside from the stink, it increases the methane in the air.

    Second of all, since the herd is probably for McDonald’s or Burger King, it will be killed and the meat broiled (or fried) into hamburgers that will increase the cholesterol of countless customers who think they are getting a quick tasty meal. And who don’t realize the price they pay later – with strokes, heart attacks and other debilitating problems.

    Third of all, since the the herd has to have more and more land to graze, more and more trees in the Amazon rain forest get cut dowm – this cuts the oxygen in the air (in addition to the farts increasing the methane).

    Finally, since the herd eats grain, this cuts down the grain available to make bread and feed humans in other ways.

    In other words, what people do in one portion of the planet affects everybody else on the planet. That is because it is ONE planet.

    What applies to the planet applies to humans as well. You cannot divide mind from body, compartmentalizing one from another. You cannot divide one human from another. We are all different portions of one LIFE inhabiting the universe. What one human does affects all the other humans on the planet.

    This means there is no such thing as a “victimless” crime. And in the end, there is no such thing as “what I do with my life on my time is my own business.” We all affect each other, whether we intend to or not.

    AND THAT IS THE POINT. That is why it is important to have a certain standard of human behavior – a minimal stamdard that enables us all to progress through life with a minimum of harm to others – and therefore a minimum of harm to ourselves as well.

    That is the unifying issue you are hankering about, Anthony. That is what ties all of your rants together.

    But bear in mind that when some Burmese ape throws a “non-conforming” citizen into the back room and beats him bloody, he too affects all of us. The standard is planet-wide, and not just limited to the issues you concentrate on.

  • thanks. He actally did sit with his lawyer in front of the court, but you’re right I should have been more clear. and yes it was published

  • Anthony Grande

    O.k. Alienboy, you are a liberal. I posted those points to prove that you are a liberal, not to argue with you. And the fact that you persistently defend those points proves that you are a liberal to the core.

    Name three things that makes you different then other liberals.

    “Or would you be a collaborator with this theoretical invader?”

    What invader is invading Palestine?

    “You’d still be out there, fighting for your freedom and prepared to do whatever it took to save your family, friends, state, right?”

    Can you tell me how ANY Palestinians are in danger?

  • ANTHONY: I am so disappointed in you. I knew you were prejudiced but I didn’t realise it was so extreme that you’d make an idiot of yourself by writing such blatant drivel.

    “Can you tell me how ANY Palestinians are in danger?”

    I’m going to be laughing at that one for weeks to come.

  • Anthony Grande

    ALIENBOY: I have been disappointed in you for a long time now. Spreading false liberal propaganda and such.

    And I am the prejudiced one? Who is the one who is justifying the terror attacks on innocent Jews who never have done anything to deserve this?

    I would like you to tell me and everyone how, Anthony Grande, is a racist. Give me one example.

    Can you tell me how ANY Palestinians are in danger?

    “I’m going to be laughing at that one for weeks to come”

    Explain. How are normal, law abiding, unterror affiliated Palestinians in danger (besided by being blown up by their own people)?


    I know I’m not the first person on here to tell you this, as I’m the person that reads ALL the comments, but your frozen mindset and inability to neither write coherently nor process any information that jars with your large set of prejudices means that I have reluctantly decided not to bother with you anymore.

    Your kind of damaged thinking processes just can’t be reasoned with, so from now on I shall just read your posts to make sure that they comply with BlogCritics Comments Policy.

  • Anthony Grande

    You call me prejudice and when I call you on it you decide that you aren’t going to talk to me?


    What a copout!!! That is just unbelievable. You use all these negative stereotypes saying that there are no Conservatives in Cali and that saying that there isn’t a single pedophile that happens to be gay and saying all pedophiles are priests and that all the Palestinians want is to have a border.

    And the funny thing is that no matter what you still have to read my “frozen mindset and inability to neither write coherently nor process any information that jars with your large set of prejudices” comments.


    I can’t believe this. This is so funny. I defeat all his biased partisan arguments and then he refuses to talk to me.


    This is in the top 10 highlights of my 2 years at Blogcritics.

  • Anthony Grande

    5 bucks says he bans me, again.

    He would just love a one sided, dry and boring Blogcritics. I think I am the only regular Conservative commenter here, am I not?

  • COMMENTS EDITOR: Anthony Grande has NEVER been banned from commenting by myself or anybody else for that matter and his remarks in #31 are deluded and false.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Alienboy, if you are rhe comments editor, that means you have to slog through all the comments I post along with that of everybody else, no?

    You truly have my sympathy.

    How high are your hip boots, and how do you keep them deodorized? (g)

  • I do in fact get to see every single comment Ruvy.

    It’s actually quite hard work and demands a certain level of concentration. That’s the hard part in our muti-tasking world but I feel that the comments are where BlogCritics really comes alive and deserve their integrity to be preserved.

  • Point of order ::: >>The attorney speaks for the client – and so in newspaper accounts, it is reported that the client spoke

    Newspaper accounts don’t read that way (At least in this neighborhood of America where I live). The attorney is quoted by name. It’s an important distinction, the same as when the US President’s Press Secretary speaks, it is he that is quoted,not the president. Though it is every now and then accompanied by the phrase, “speaking for the president.”

    -Temple, print journalist / newspaper reporter.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I won’t argue with you, Temple. Especailly if your make your dough as a print journalist. Though I live in a different neighborhood than you do, and it sure ain’t America. And the Jeruslam Post or Haaretz sometimes read like American papers. You’ve only driven home my point about the analogy that Ryan used in his article.

  • To the point ::: “unbiased” is the word, and it isn’t that you have to be unbiased or even without pre-judgment; it’s that you have to present the story as it is being played out in real life without corrupting it with your own prejudices.

    I’m not going to go point by point. But a couple of examples.

    You should not be using the word “inspiring” in this sentence, His message holds an implied and inspiring credibility after a nearly decade-long fight in various courts across the nation as that is subjective on your part. Your job as a journalist if you thought you were witnessing people BEING inspired, is to go find someone to quote and tell you that.

    And the “implied” is completely unnecessary.

    >>a relatively small crowd

    Numbers are always better – “about 20.” It removes any judgment of “small” or “large.” Let the reader decide. Sometimes the modifier is appropriate but a number should also be included.

    NAME said (or says) is the usual way to go. Either way, pick one or the other, don’t move back and forth between “Dale said” and “said Dale.”

    >>first-year political science and languages Samantha Wilson said.

    Hopefully someone caught that the word “student” was missing.

    Cleanliness contradicts homosexuality? ??????? Are we sure that’s a part of the controversy? Cleanliness can’t refer to purity of the soul, because that’s what morality refers to.

    There are all kinds of structural areas that could be improved / fixed but we’ll leave that for another time.

    Oh and lastly, we’re assuming you asked the paper, where a copyright notice is prominently displayed, that you can use this here, with permission. That too is a basic rule of writing and journalism.

    (Sorry for any typos in this note.)

  • There you go Ryan, a free, detailed appraisal by a current working professional jouralist/editor.

  • Anthony Grande

    “Anthony Grande has NEVER been banned from commenting by myself or anybody else for that matter and his remarks in #31 are deluded and false.”

    Anthony Grande wasn’t but Anthony G was about a year ago. Do ya see the connection?

  • Cleanliness contradicts homosexuality?

    There’s something very humorous in that phrase.

    Reason and truth contradict fundamentalism.

  • Anthony Grande

    Hey Alienboy, go to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/09/111301.php and scroll down to comment 592 and you will see the official statement of me being banned.

  • RJ

    “Isn’t the clan an illegal hate organisation?”

    The “clan” is not illegal. We do not outlaw unpopular opinions here in the US.

  • RJ

    “There was a debatable case for going in to Afghanistan and none for Iraq.”

    But you aren’t liberal???

  • RJ: Thanks for answering my klan question (the c was deliberate, btw), I didn’t understand their purpose was to have an opinion, that they can do. On the other hand, as I’ve said before, absolute freedom of speech seems a problematic idea and certainly over-rated.

    As to your second point, I don’t see that as liberal or conservative, merely factual. There is still debate about Afghanistan and I said it was debatable. The case for Iraq would depend on which unconvincing US Government justification for Bush’s executive action you meant. None have sounded plausible to me.

    And, no, I’m not liberal, in either American or British meanings of the word.

  • Anthony Grande

    Notice how I called Alienboy out on his lie and he just shuts up?

  • Anthony, you’re asking to be banned again, and for largely the same reason. This site isn’t your playground. You were previously booted for doing destructive things, and your current juvenile tiff with Alienboy, who happens to the comments editor here at Blogcritics.org, is similarly destructive.

    Consider this your warning.

  • Anthony Grande

    So you guys DID oust me once?

  • RogerMDillon

    Ha ha.

  • Consider this your last warning.

  • Anthony Grande

    Phillip, honestly I am not trying to get banned but what exactly am I doing that Roger isn’t to get warnings?

  • Picking childish fights with people who work hard on a volunteer basis, like Alienboy and me. If you want to continue this particular conversation, email me using pwinn at this website domain. Any more comments on this subject here will be considered to have violated your final warning.

  • Anthony: Sorry I haven’t been available to answer you,been both offline and ill. However, it seems you were correct; you were indeed banned about a year ago, long before BlogCritics had an Editorial Team and nobody was really focussing on your activity with all the other little things we have to do as well.

    Personally, I would see being forced to ban anybody as a defeat, both for myself and them, as I don’t see how an exclusion policy can be anything other than a last resort, rather like banishment. As you can see, not everybody is as tolerant as me, so unless you actually want to be banned, be glad I’m your Comments Editor! lol