Diogenes notes that the Boston Globe gave a front-page farewell in glowing terms to the late former Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds, who died last week. Studds, who was openly gay, was censured by Congress in 1983 for having actual sex—as opposed to email and IM sex-talk—with an underage mail page. Undeterred, Studds refused to resign and in fact ran again for the seat and the voters of Massachusetts obligingly kept sending him back to Congress until he voluntarily left office in 1996.
Meanwhile, the Boston Globe has been (justifiably) vigilant against the coddling of molesters of children in the Archdiocese of Boston, winning a Pulitzer for its efforts, and has excoriated Republican Rep. Mark Foley, who recently resigned after admitting to sending explicit messages to male pages.
While it is laudatory to denounce both of the latter two situations, how does the Globe justify it’s inconsistency in applying the same standard to the Democrat from Massachusetts? They don’t even bother.
Technorati Tags:Boston Globe, Foley, homosexuality, media bias, politics, Studds
Please, Dom. The VOTERS in his congressional district of Cape Cod kept sending him back.
No, I’m asking why the Boston Globe of today makes a big deal about the Church scandal and the Foley scandal, but doesn’t seem to think that Studds behavior is all that relevant. When Paul Shanley or Mark Foley dies, will we see fawning tributes that almost ignore their sexual predation?