The White House Correspondents Association voted for diversity and “inclusion” on Monday by putting the gay newspaper The Washington Blade into its print pool (which takes turns filing detailed reports on the president’s trips and events for other reporters to use when they don’t want a large press contingent).
Other opinionated outlets have been in the pool. The leftist U.K. Guardian was added as well. But statements from both the WHCA and the Blade stretched the limits of credulity. First, the obviously liberal and pro-gay Blade claimed they had a tradition of objectivity:
Blade editor Kevin Naff welcomed the news. “This designation reflects the Blade’s nearly 45-year commitment to quality journalism,” Naff said. “We’re excited to get started and continue the Blade’s long tradition of excellence in objective reporting.”
Last year, Naff expressed his horror that Baltimore’s Fox station WBFF supported a traditional-marriage referendum in Maryland: "So much for “fair and balanced.” I wonder what the gay employees of Fox News and its affiliates — like anchor Shepard Smith — think about the company endorsing this referendum. Let WBFF and Fox know what you think of their marriage opposition, email email@example.com or call 410-467-4545."
One of the truly Orwellian notions that gay journalists express is that they can be both extremely partisan for the gay agenda and argue (like GLAAD) that their opponents should be excluded from news stories, and then suggest they are objective and nonpartisan.
The second ridiculous statement came from the WHCA.
“This is not a political statement by the Correspondents’ Association in any way, shape or form,” [Reuters reporter Steven] Thomma said. “It is a journalistic statement. We welcome into the print pool tell-all journalists.”
Can you imagine how much politics would have been involved if the WHCA had chosen not to vote for “inclusive”? Inside the liberal media, they had no choice.