The story that the newspaper was researching was on the subject of gay teens and HIV. The opening fact, according to the newspaper, was that all the teenagers found to be HIV-positive were also gay. Why?

I don't know whether this is true, but its verity (or not) wasn't the reason that we declined to comment. Rather, the reason was that we had no faith that the Straits Times would do a fair write-up. Why should we lend our names and credibility to a biased piece?

Typically, when one is interviewed by a newspaper, one provides far more comment than is selected for use in the final article. There is thus a real risk that the newspaper will choose those words that most suit their editorial objective and ignore those that do not, even if the latter formed your main point.

An example was when Cherian George was interviewed a few months back about citizen journalism. It turned out that the final feature (it wasn't a single article but a multi-page feature) was to promote Stomp, the Straits Times' new web portal. Some of George's more innocuous comments were quoted, but his main point, that Stomp did not constitute citizen journalism, was left out.

When it comes to gay issues, we know that the Straits Times has seldom been fair, hence the risk of the latest story turning out to be gay-negative is high. My friend and I didn't think we should help them with something like that.

I would much rather put my thoughts here on my own website where I have editorial control. As soon as I upload this, I will send an email to the Straits Times and tell them that if they want to quote me, they can cite this article, and then the public can compare what I say with what they report. But don't hold your breath. They are most unlikely to cite this article because they see the blogosphere as their competition.

* * * * *

 
But first, let me give you a fresh example of how the Straits Times plays down gay-affirmative points of view.

In the 12 September edition of the Straits Times, the story about actor Brad Pitt was headlined "My kids will affect my movies: Pitt".

Halfway down the story is this bit:

He did not talk about Jolie, but in the October issue of Esquire, on newstands on Sept 19, he says they will marry 'when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able'.

And then immediately, the story changes subject to deal with the storyline in Pitt's next film, Babel.

How many readers saw the significance of that quoted statement? What did Pitt mean when he said "everyone else"?

Let's now take a look at how other newspapers reported the story.

In the United States, the national circulation USA Today headlined its 9 September story "Brad Pitt: 'I'll marry when everyone can'." Its opening paragraph was:

NEW YORK (AP) ­ Brad Pitt, ever the social activist, says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped. "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.

It too didn't explain that Pitt was referring to same-sex marriage, though it gave a clue when it spoke about "restrictions on who can marry whom". However, in the US, gay marriage is such a hot topic that readers are unlikely to miss the point.

Nonetheless, other US newspapers made it clear in their headlines even when the actual copy was taken from news wire stories:

Denver Post, 8 September 2006:

Headline: Pitt, Jolie wedding hinges on gay rights

New York - Brad Pitt says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.

St Louis Post-Despatch, 9 September 2006:

Headline: Pitt, Jolie will marry ... when gays can

Brad Pitt says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped. "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue.

Outside of the US, editors took care to rewrite the story slightly to insert context for their readers, by making a specific reference to gay marriage.

Sydney Morning Herald, 10 September 2006:

Headline: Brad's wedding vow

Actor Brad Pitt has declared he will not marry Angelina Jolie until restrictions on gay marriage are lifted.

Jolie gave birth to their daughter in May, but Pitt said there was no chance of them getting married while others in the United States were denied the same privilege.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able to," the 42-year-old actor told Esquire magazine for its October issue.

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting), 8 September 2006:

Headline: Brad Pitt says no wedding until everyone can marry

Movie star Brad Pitt says he's ready to marry actress Angelina Jolie once all Americans are "legally able" to marry, too.

The 42-year-old actor revealed his views in an interview for Esquire magazine's October issue.

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," said Pitt in the article, in a reference to the gay marriage debate in the U.S.

TONIGHT (South Africa), 11 September 2006:

Headline: Brad takes a stand

Brad Pitt will marry Angelina Jolie when all gay couples in the US can legally tie the knot.

The Ocean's Thirteen actor - who lives with the Tomb Raider actress and their three children, four-month-old Shiloh, Maddox, five, and 18-month-old Zahara - has continually dismissed plans for the couple to walk down the aisle, but insists the pair will tie the knot when US law is changed to allow everybody to wed.

He told Esquire magazine "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

In all the above examples (and there are many more from other newspapers around the world) you will see that the political message from Pitt was the chief point of the story, placed right there in the opening paragraph, if not in the headline itself.

The Straits Times was different. The political message was buried in the middle and the context left unexplained. Don't tell me we can't draw any conclusions from such difference.

What is the social impact of sequestering such statements? Brad Pitt clearly wanted to use his celebrity status to draw attention to something he considers an inequity. He wanted to set an example that standing up against such inequity is the right thing to do regardless of one's sexual orientation. By downplaying the message, the Straits Times actively sought to shroud his intent and thereby tilt the debate against the position that Pitt wanted to espouse.

* * * * *

 
The Straits Times reporter whom I spoke to didn't think that the Straits Times was biased. She tried to explain that whenever the gay issue came up, e.g. with the doctor who was entrapped for drugs, or the National University of Singapore professor who was murdered, the person's sexual orientation was pertinent to the story.

Actually, as I explained to her, I don't have a big problem with that. I accept that there will be stories where the bad apples or unfortunate crime victims happen to be gay. My complaint -– and that of almost all other gay Singaporeans -– is the way that gay-positive stories never see the light of day, but only gay-negative, or at best gay-neutral ones.

I conceded to her that the Life! section of the Straits Times does carry a fair degree of mention of homosexual orientation, such as the story in the 3 September edition, headlined "Support group started for those with gay children", but by ghettoising gay stories in that section, the Straits Times casts homosexuality as mere personal oddity, artistic indulgence, or entertainment fluff.

When, on the rare occasion, the "gay" word is used in a story in the news section of the Straits Times, it is almost always associated with crime or disease. How can one argue then that the cumulative effect isn't negative?

But more importantly, what the Straits Times is doing is to deny that the gay issue is a political issue. In serious newspapers elsewhere, it is reported as such. And so it should be, especially in Singapore since the State actively discriminates against gay Singaporeans. Never reporting it as a relevant political issue is an inexcusable editorial failing.

Even when reported within Life! as the Brad Pitt story was, you see the downplaying of any political message.

In the support group story mentioned above, you find sentences like this one: "Dr Khoo learnt that [her sons'] confessions did not mean they were sexually active." The choice of words is terrible. "Confess" implies something wrongful.

But the main point that I made to the reporter (while stressing that I don't blame her personally, but neither should she be naïve about her editors' policies) was that we almost never see gay-positive stories in the political, home news sections of the Straits Times. Nor do we see any critique of the government's homophobia in any commentary. I'm not going to be convinced by her protestations of "balanced coverage" in the newspaper until I see them.

For example, last month, we had over 20 events in Indignation, the gay and lesbian Pride season. Not one was covered. The foreign media thought it was newsworthy enough to report to the rest of the world, and they covered it. The Straits Times didn't think our very own gay pride month concerned Singapore.

In February 2005, People Like Us took issue with the way the government was planning to fund, with $100,000, anti-gay programs in schools, despite such brainwashing programs having been condemned by professional psychologists, and despite our pointing out that they were thinly disguised attempts at religious proselytisation as well. The Straits Times didn't think such whistle-blowing was worthy of coverage.

There is a systematic denial that the gay issue is a political issue. I know why. The moment it is admitted as a political issue, it must unavoidably be written as one critical of the government. This is because the government is not neutral; it takes the lead in entrenching and defending homophobic attitudes in this country. Since the Straits Times finds that it cannot be critical of the government, what else can it do but try to pretend that there is no gay issue worth writing about?

But it's one thing for Straits Times' reporters and editors to know that ultimately they are our government's propagandists, and quite another for them to delude themselves that they are working for a world-class newspaper with impeccable standards of objectivity. It strikes me as not a little amusing when reporters are taken aback to learn that gay community leaders don't want to help them with their (anti-) gay stories.

* * * * *

 
What would I have said to the Straits Times if I didn't think they were a biased newspaper, about gay teens and HIV?

To begin with, am I surprised if it's true that so far, the teenagers who have been infected have been gay (and presumably, male)? No, I'm not, and I can think of two reasons:

• Gay male teenagers are more likely to be sexually active than heterosexual male teenagers;
   
• HIV prevalence is generally higher among gay males (the gay male teenagers' sex partners) than among straight females (the straight male teenagers' sex partners).

Given these two factors, gay males face a higher risk of being in contact with, and being infected by an HIV-positive partner.

To me, I see the above as simple epidemiological factors, but I know that many people will read their prejudices into them. There is a tendency to read moral failure into both these facts, as a result of two subjective notions:

• Having sex is bad. Therefore, if gay male teenagers are conceded to be having more sex than heterosexual male teenagers, then gay male teenagers are morally worse than the latter. Since the point of difference is gay/straight, these people will conclude that the root cause of moral depravity is gayness.
   
• Secondly, HIV infection is just desserts for moral depravity. That the gay male community has a higher prevalence of HIV merely proves its moral degeneracy.

It is this kind of neglect that makes the Straits Times an irresponsible newspaper despite all its claims to the contrary. Actually, "irresponsible" may not be strong enough if the neglect is deliberate.

And this is where I will point to the government.

Last year, the Health Ministry offered a gay organisation a budget to conduct a program aimed at gay men, particularly teenagers. The organisation put up a project proposal, but the ministry then started to say No to parts of it. Eventually the program never went ahead, because the organisation felt that it could not compromise on what it considered one of its critical factors for success.

The organisation knew what it was doing, being run by a trained psychologist. It knew that to reach out successfully to gay teens the program must first be perceived as gay-affirmative. The intended audience must feel that it is designed for them, and that they would be comfortable being part of it. It's as true of safe-sex programs as it is of your school's prom night.

Specifically, the program must highlight the proposition that, yes, it is OK to be gay. That yes, gay sex in itself is fine; the only question is what precautions to take. The participant is recognised and accepted for what he is: a sexually active gay teenager. And speaks to him on that empathetic basis.

Being careless, putting oneself at risk despite knowing it, is a form of self-destructive behaviour. Changing a negative self-image is crucial to people taking better care of themselves. They must feel worthy of the trouble. In risky situations, the kid must have the self-confidence to say 'No'. He must not be needy, wanting a moment of sex to feel loved.

Gay teenagers who feel despised by family and friends on account of their sexual orientation are particularly at risk, and that is why the first and critical step in getting them to be better motivated to play safe is to help them feel good about themselves. They must feel they have value as individuals, their lives are worth living and their health worth protecting. That even if they are alienated from their family and their school friends, they have friends in the gay community who care for them. 

Telling them that they are inherently bad because they are homosexual is the worst possible way to run a program. Telling them they should feel guilty about being sexually active, or that they should turn straight is imbecility to the nth degree.

And yet, the ministry, as I understand it, told the organisation that a gay-affirmative position was not permissible. It would be equivalent to promoting homosexuality, which, from the point of view of State dogma, was out of the question. And so the organisation chose not to run it rather than make things worse but telling gay youngsters they're bad people.

Are we surprised then that we have no funding for outreach to gay teenagers? Are we surprised then that some of them get infected?

That is what I would have said to the Straits Times. But since, as you can see, my comments would be critical of the homophobic, dogmatic and callous stance of our government, there would be no real chance my comments would be carried the way they are intended. So why would I want to be interviewed? 

My guess is that the Straits Times' story about gay teens and HIV will come out asking: What wrong with gays? What's wrong with our teens?  All beside the point. But it won't ask the really relevant question: what's wrong with our government?

© Yawning Bread