Ann Coulter column update: credit where it's due, but not where it's not due

(Background for this post here.)

Here's the credit where it's due part: Powerline issued one of those non-correction corrections over at their site about the Ann Coulter column business.  Here is it in its entirety:

The other day, I linked to a column by Ann Coulter in which she said that, several weeks ago "the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans." Several readers have told me that the New York Times did not "out" the gays in question (like Coulter I'm not going to compound the offense by naming names) because they were already "out" -- that is, the fact that they are gay was no longer a secret. One reader has asked us to make a formal correction.

Dictionary.com defines "out" when used as a verb as follows: "To be disclosed or revealed; come out: Truth will out." I would argue that when the New York Times publicizes the fact that a private citizen, of whom few people have heard, is gay, it is "disclosing" or "revealing" that fact to its readers, a mass audience. If the verb "out" has a more technical meaning when it comes to gays, then maybe another verb is more appropriate. I don't think the matter is worth arguing about. Either way, what the Times did is deplorable.

But as you can see, this is not a correction at all.  They're still wrong, and they don't want to admit it.  And in trying to look less wrong, they end up being more wrong.  Couple of things:

They're cherry-picking their definitions.  You may recall that the definition I emailed to them was Merriam Webster's (click on "out[2,verb]:

2 : to identify publicly as being such secretly <wanted to out pot smokers>; especially : to identify as being a closet homosexual
intransitive senses : to become publicly known <the truth will out>

Which, as you can see, specifically references the sexual sense.  The Oxford English Dictionary (you need a subscription or a University Library), the most thorough that I know, is slightly more specific:

6. trans.    a. colloq. (orig. U.S.). To expose the undeclared homosexuality of (esp. a prominent or public figure). Also refl. and intr. with reflexive meaning. Cf. come out

In which the word "undeclared" part is interesting.  And Powerline, instead of using the definition that I sent them, finds the dictionary.com definition, which is both the shortest and the least detailed. 

Think that's pretty amazing?  That they'd cherry-pick their definitions to look less wrong than they are?  Well, it gets worse.

My guess is the real reason they won't "name names," as they say, is that naming them would show how wrong they are.  In the case of Maya Keyes (Alan's daughter), she outed herself at a gay rights rally.  Which is to say, she certainly intended her statement to be a public one, and one specifically in support of gay rights. 

As for Jamiel Terry, described on the GLAAD website as an "activist" and "a sought after speaker and writer on the issue of gay rights," if there was any secret there, surely he wouldn't have given this interview written this piece, subtitled Jamiel Terry talks about why he came out in print and growing up the gay son of Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry.  You will no doubt be pleased to know that that interview piece originally ran in, yes, I'm afraid so, OUT Magazine. 

-- I'm sorry, Michael, what was that magazine called again?

-- You heard right.  OUT Magazine.

As for Mary Cheney, referred to (but not by name) in passing in the original piece, well, we all know about that.

As for Candace Gingrich, Newt's sister, as I've said before, she was outed by her mother.  Now working for Human Rights Campaign, Candace's bio on that site says:

Since 1995, Candace Gingrich has served as a key advocate for issues of importance to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Her 1996 autobiography, The Accidental Activist, was a best seller in the gay and lesbian community.

All of which is to say that though these figures are "private citizens," they've all also spoken out publicly about their sexuality, and have to done so in support of a gay rights agenda.  I can't say for sure, but my guess is that if they thought that Dan Savage's column would advance their work, they'd be very happy to be mentioned in it.  Just a guess.

(Technical note: I tried to send a trackback to Powerline's post, but their trackback thing doesn't seem to be working.)

-- Michael

Comments

[Cheryl]

Michael, their attempt to fudge the retraction is completely lame. They are sitting there with egg all over their faces and they know it. This is the best you can expect from a bunch of fanatics. Congratulations.

[Orac]

I've tried to trackback to Powerline as well regarding other posts. It definitely doesn't work. It always sends back an error message, at least for me.

[Ryan]

Thanks for keeping on to these guys. I saw the "correction" last night, and I think it's hilarious that they would make it the last post of the day in hopes that they can bury it under heaps of GW hero worship before Monday afternoon when their traffic peaks.

No intellectually honest person can read that post and not feel direct some shame at these guys. Why try to save face when facts are staring you down? Why hide behind the "I'm an old rich white guy, so I don't know what 'out' means" defense. "Blog of the Year", indeed.

[Incertus]

Why hide? Because being conservative means you never admit you're wrong, at least not completely. It's all part of the "strong father" frame they try to put forward all the time. Nobody's correct every single time, but the right wing acts as though they are in order to forward the perception, and part of that facade is never fully admitting to a mistake.

[dmeyers]

I love when someone selects a definition of a word in which there are many definitions they are "cherry picking" but you are free to CHOOSE which definition you sent them , "You may recall that the definition I emailed to them was Merriam Webster's".

I didn't know you where the FINAL AUTHORITY ON WHAT DEFINITION PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO USE. I understand, only the definition you CHOOSE is allowed, all others is "cherry picking".

I think the main issue is that public officials are "public" and their lives are fair game to look into. There is no reason for the Newspaper of Record to dig into the lives of private citizens. I think a group of people should begin to look into the private lives of the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters of all the editors/journalists/columnists of the Times and publish what they find. It seems like the only fair thing to do...

[here's what's left]

dmeyers.

listen very carefully.

read the post. the three people who are mentioned are GAY ACTIVISTS!!!

[Musing Michael]

dmeyers, you twit. Maya Keyes, Candace Gingrich, Mary Cheney, and Jamiel Terry are NOT "private citizens." Maya worked on her father's spectacularly failed senatorial campaign last year, and she maintains a blog where she opnly discusses her sexuality. And as Michael pointed out, she announced that she was indeed a great big dyke in a public speech. So how is that "private"?

Candace Gingrich works for a gay-rights lobbying group and used to write a column for the Advocate. Since you probably don't subscribe to that magazine, I'll tell you that it tags itself (on the front cover of every issue, mind you) as "the national gay & lesbian newsmagazine."

Mary Cheney was a flack for Coors when it was still trying to suck up to gays and lesbians in an attempt to get them to buy its diluted horse piss masquerading as beer again. She also worked for her father's campaign, as I recall.

Jamiel Terry is probably the closest to a "private citizen" among the four. But he gave a lengthy interview to the Advocate a year or two ago, in which he made it very clear that he's gay, and in which he spoke of the strain it had placed on his relationship with his adoptive father.

In other words, all four individuals had made public statements affirming their homosexuality long before the Times published its editorial. And the anarcho-conservacons of PowerLame are hyping "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in the words of the immortal Bard. (That's Shakespeare, dmeyers, another cultural icon with which I'm sure you're unfamiliar.)

[Incertus]

In short, dmeyers, you can't be outed when you're already out. Are you ready to concede this one or should we continue with the beatdown?

[Ryan]

Sorry, dmeyers, but I don't think your criticism stands up to cursory inspection.

Just like the sexuality of the NYT column's subjects, the definition of "out" in this context is unambiguous. Ann Coulter can get away with lies and perverted misrepresentations for the sheer fact that everyone on the left and most moderate conservatives know that she is a part-time writer and full-time liar

The guys at Power Line have no excuse here, especially considering their traffic. They should be held accountable for spreading lies and rumors. Don't take it personally, we on the left will correct each other and take it as we should. No one forces us to make corrections, we do it because it is the ethical thing to do. ("The truth is out there", right? I guess we are the X-files crowd.)

As for "digging into the lives of private citizens", I think it's deplorable and shouldn't be tolerated. Whether it's a White House intern who is thrust into the center of a witch hunt against a popular president or if it's the unknown relative of a prominent pseudopolitician, it's wrong. But I feel that if you're going to enter the public sphere in any capacity, you are opening yourself to inspection.

[DavidByron]

They definitely get an "F" in Republican tactics.

One reader has asked us to make a formal correction.

What were they thinking? Admit to a mistake? Act as if it matters? Recognise criticism? Very odd.

[Ryan]

That's right, David.

For better and for worse, they conveniently left out a link to this blog. I say "for better" because the red hordes won't come here whining about showing their boys up; "for worse" because the critic will remain unnamed, and Michael's reputation as 'the watchdog who made Power Line stumble' is forever stunted. I think it's pretty lame of them to do it. They seem pretty liberal with their linking practices. (They actually linked to Coulter, y'know?)

I still think it's a tremendous accomplishment for this blog, and if you can figure out how to trackback on that post, please do it.

[Cheryl]

Everyone, please!

We all know that the Republicans are a bunch of lying scumbags. They lie about gay people all the time, implying or even explicitly stating that all queers are degenerate animals and slanting or fabricating all the evidence to 'prove' it. Then they deny they do any such thing as lie. Then they call anyone who tells the truth about them a liar - especially when a morally straight person is pointing out the bent Republican hypocrisies.

We all know this. Even Republicans know this. In fact, they are proud of their skill in manipulating others with lies. They consider it a basic survival tactic that only the fittest candidates on the planet for reproduction should be allowed to get away with, and those candidates are all heterosexual Republicans, preferrably wealthy and not of African ancestry but they make an exception every now and then (known as a token) to prove they are not racist classist eugenecist bigots.

Can we drop the whole topic now? We have beat this dead horse into a finely ground slurry. Let us please talk about what Repbulicans do and leave what they say for the talking heads to discuss on TV. It is incredibly wasteful to expend energy analyzing the psychological makeup of a bunch of lying religious freaks and even more wasteful to waste time arguing with them. There is nobody home so stop hollering at the boiler-plate threshold and get down in the trenches where the real work is. Get your own agenda out there in plain sight. What is it that you want from life? How would you change the world?

We need to stay on top of what they do and devise effective countermeasures. The best way to do so is to remain true to our own agenda regardless of any barrage of lying attacks on us. If we just stay on course with our agenda it will get done so enough of the whining about the lies now, OK?

[CKL]

I don't think that they accept trackbacks. Though they claim to. Maybe we lefties are all considered spammers....

[Bulworth]

At the root of Powerline's professed outrage is their assumption that in identifying certain individuals as being gay (whether or not they were first officially outted by someone else or themselves) "what the NYT did was deplorable".

To conservatives, being gay is deplorable.

For liberals, being gay is not deplorable. Hence lies the distinction.

[Western Infidels]

dmeyers: I didn't know you where the FINAL AUTHORITY ON WHAT DEFINITION PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO USE.

Michael chose what he felt was the most complete, precise, and applicable definition under the circumstances. Do you disagree with the choice he made? Do you think Powerline's choice was more appropriate?

dmeyers: I understand, only the definition you CHOOSE is allowed, all others is "cherry picking".

Cherry picking is when one chooses an item from a set (of data points, definitions, quotes, whatever) with the intent of supporting a desired conclusion, rather than choosing the most appropriate, most honest, or most typical item.

For our benefit, why don't you define "out" for us. See if you can define it in such a way that this statement becomes true:

"The New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans."

[Jeff]

I have never been to your site before, and you would probably think me a moonbat conservative.

I want to point out, however, that I had a personal experience with the Powerline folks very similar to yours. In one of their posts, they quoted a headline and linked to a site. The site itself UTTERLY failed to support the headline. I sent them an e-mail suggesting a correction since presumably they did not want to propagate lies, to which they responded by claiming that I was seeking their personal destruction.

You have to remember that these guys are lawyers, and they are making jury speeches.

[Incertus]

Is that supposed to excuse their actions somehow, Jeff?

[Jeff]

Just explains.

I have long ago given up hope of finding a lawyer concerned with truth: they believe in the adversarial process, in which two professional liars argue in front of a retired liar.

[Incertus]

Fair enough--in a court of law. Outside the court, however, we have the right to call Hinderaker and his ilk exactly what they are--lying SOBs.

[Jeff]

@ Incertus

Did you even READ my post? Are you literate? I gave additional evidence in support of your position and get attacked for it.

If you are an example of liberal thought process, I understand why liberals keep losing elections.

[here's what's left]

thanks for the comments jeff. i'm not going to pretend like i'm not a partisan, and that i didn't have a partisan interest in following this story. but at a certain point it became kind of ridiculous that they wouldn't just admit a clear mistake. it's nice to know i'm not the only one who's had a similar experience.

partisan-ness aside, i think it's important that bloggers, especially famous one, try their best to be accurate and admit it when they're not. otherwise the blogosphere will become just one more partisan football, and that would sure be a shame.

[Jeff]

The truly ridiculous aspect of powerline is that they they make such a point of criticizing the media for sloppy and tendacious work while being equally sloppy and tendacious.

To the extent that blogs are opinions, tendacious is fine (although sloppy bothers me.) But when you set yourself up as a voice crying in the wilderness for accuracy and purport to provide fact, honor demands avoiding mistakes if possible and acknowledging them promptly and forthrightly. But to expect honor from three lawyers in cahoots is like expecting a basset hound to sing Madmae Butterfly.

[Jeff]

Wow Managed to mangle tendentious twice in the same post. Sorry.

[Incertus]

Jeff, I wasn't attacking you. Sorry if I came off that way. I was trying to reiterate what you said, and I guess it came out wrong. My apologies.

[Jeff]

@ Incertus

Apologies accepted. You and I agree that the powerline crew play fast and loose with the truth. No need to argue.