More evident than ever is how newspapers, and other media, are desperately competing for business. In doing so, they are too often confusing opinion with reporting. While reporters are inserting more opinion in their columns, editorial boards are shying away from their role of endorsing candidates.

The New York Times recently announced it would no longer endorse in any political race except for president. The Times announcement seems a little schizophrenic. They took a strong stand helping to push Joe Biden to step down as a candidate, and stated forcefully they don’t support Trump. Then the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, writes a lengthy op-ed published in the Washington Post where he “warned of a ‘quiet war’ against the freedom of the press as former President Trump pursues a second White House term with negative rhetoric about the media.”

He laments what Trump could do to free journalism, but seemingly disregards what a MAGA Congress could do to aid him, by having the Times in essence say it wouldn’t endorse against a MAGA congressional, or Senate candidate. He compares Trump to Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban and says, “Trump and his allies have hinted at their plans to increase attacks on the media, pointing to the former president’s comments last year in which he said, ‘When I win the presidency of the United States, they [Comcast] and others of the LameStream Media, will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things and events.’” So, it’s really hard to figure the Times out.

Earlier this month, newspapers controlled by Alden Global Capital said “they would no longer endorse candidates for president, governor and the U.S. Senate. The newspapers in the hedge fund’s portfolio include dozens of dailies like the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Boston Herald, Orlando Sentinel and San Jose Mercury News.” Then the Baltimore Sun said it would no longer make endorsements. Seems like an effort to offend fewer people, and sell more papers.

Mainstream media today are doing a disservice to the American people in how they deal with politics, the 2024 presidential election being a prime example. I want to be open: I write about politics, and the presidential election. I am a lifelong Democrat. But I am a columnist, not a reporter, and there is a huge difference. Columnists like myself share opinions. I try to base my opinions on facts, but some columnists actually use what Kellyanne Conway called, ‘alternative facts.’ Either way, what we columnists write, or say, is opinion.

On the other hand, reporters should always be writing about facts. They can write about what they have seen, or heard from others. They can freely quote someone else’s opinion in their columns, but they should leave their own opinion out. Today, that is often not happening. Too often we see reporters’ personal opinions subtly enter their columns. Then newspaper reporters go on TV, or comment on social media platforms. They share their personal opinions, which calls into question their reporting. Today, editors can take a good column, put a clickbait headline on it to attract attention, and that can often color how people perceive the column. Some of these headlines are not even what the column is actually about. Newspapers actually change a headline from the print edition to their online edition, simply to get more clicks.

The media will have a huge impact on how this election turns out. While they claim to only cover the news, and don’t make it, the reality is the media do much more. They seem to have adopted the role of influencer more than ever before, though they have always done this by determining how much attention they give any one issue, and of course by what they choose to report on. Yet today there is so much competition every outlet, print and TV, seems to feel the need to have a point of view to attract audiences. Seems in some ways contradictory to newspaper editorial boards saying they won’t endorse.

The mainstream media are generally covering this election as if Trump is a candidate like any other who has ever run for president. That is not the case. Many reporters appear to have a hard time dealing with Trump, and seem afraid to be honest when writing about, or talking about, or with him. That is one way to influence the election. When Biden was still in the race there was massive coverage of his age, and missteps, even before his disastrous debate performance. There was rarely a report on him that didn’t append his age and stumbles to his name. After the debate, the media pounced, and it was not just editorial comment. It was a really unusual situation, and covering it was important. But Trump’s lies had often been accepted, as were his stumbles in speeches. Then in the debate, in which Trump lied in every other utterance, that was seemingly forgotten.

Now Biden is out, and Kamala Harris is the nominee. This got wide coverage including, and up to, her choosing Gov. Walz as her running mate. Trump was out of the headlines and that seemed to drive him crazier than normal. But the media seemed to lay off of him for a bit. Now the media are criticizing Harris for a lack of policy papers, or doing interviews with them. I am OK with that, as long as they report Trump also has no real policy papers, except for Project 2025, which he claims isn’t his. The GOP platform is only 16 pages but has gotten little attention. Also, where is the discussion of Trump’s age, he is now the oldest person to ever run for president, and his speeches though loud, are often as embarrassing as was Biden’s debate performance. He can’t focus for more than two sentences at a time and often forgets where he is. Then where is the focus on Trump being a candidate for the highest office of the land, commander in chief, who has been found liable for sexual assault, and is a convicted felon. Aren’t those appellations that should fairly be appended to Trump’s name every time he is written about? These are indisputable facts, as was Biden’s age, always appended to stories about him.

I am not naïve enough to think the right-wing media like Fox News will do this. But I would expect those like the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, and CBS, to do better. I would expect them to do to both Harris and Trump the same thing. Call them out when they are lying. When media report on either one’s speech, it is fine if they call out lies, or misstatements, in each. In the debate, if the media questioners refused to call out Trump on his lies, as happened in the Biden/Trump debate, Harris needs to be ready to do so. But it is really the media that has a responsibility to the American voter to do so.

I don’t expect much to change between now and Nov. 5 but can always hope. We will know by Tuesday night if ABC challenged Trump at the debate with tough questions. Did they ask him about being the oldest candidate ever to run for president? Did they ask him if he thinks a convicted felon should be commander in chief? Did they challenge his lies during the debate?  I am not holding out much hope for any of this. But I urge readers of, and listeners to, the mainstream media, to at least call them out when they pretend opinion is news, and when they continue to treat Trump as if he is the same as any other candidate to have ever run for president. He is not, and opinion is not news.

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Kamala Harris used the debate for exactly what she needed to do. She told the American people what her goals were, and how they would benefit from them. She showed how smart she is, and looked and sounded presidential. Trump, on the other hand, often appeared certifiably insane. We will shortly know whether independents will see that. Will young people, African Americans, and women, grasp how frightening Trump really is for their future health and safety. Harris managed to goad him into what often sounded like gibberish. 

I had a problem with the moderators who once again allowed him to get away with lie after lie, only calling him on the few that were so egregious they couldn’t help it. They were clearly better than the ones from CNN in the Biden/Trump debate. I like David Muir, and watch him every evening. He is a solid reporter. 

Again, the question we will have answered in the next eight weeks is how independents who viewed Harris favorably in this debate, will end up voting. How those Republicans who have questions about Trump, who are not part of his MAGA cult, will react. Will they see Trump for what he is, or will they vote based on believing his lies.  Harris managed to goad Trump into saying some really dumb things, which isn’t all that hard, as he tends to do that whenever he opens his mouth. But she got him to lose his cool. The more the American public see that the better. Harris went into this debate with close to 30% of voters saying they wanted to know more about her; 90% said they had all they needed to know about Trump. What this indicated to me was there was an upside for Harris if she did well, and she did really well. 

It is hard to imagine nearly 50% of the voters in this county will vote for a sexual predator, who is a convicted felon. Harris managed to get that in, and it rattled Trump. One can only hope the vast majority of young people, women, African Americans, and the LGBTQ community, won’t fall for Trump’s BS. And that is what it is, all BS. The claims he made about being a good businessman were debunked by Harris. When the issue of foreign policy came up Trump lost. He refused to say he would defend Ukraine, he couldn’t deny all the positive things he has said about Putin, and Kim Jong Un. He was even proud that Orban, strongman in Hungary, loves him. Harris gave a strong positive statement on the Israel /Hamas war and her belief that to keep both Israel and the Palestinians safe we need a two-state solution. Trump basically said nothing. He just keeps saying he could end every war, with of course no plan on how. When it came to healthcare, he got caught saying he would develop a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. The moderators reminded him, “you talked about this nine years ago,” and yet he still has no plan. On abortion Harris walked right over him, leaving him sputtering.

He couldn’t rebut Harris when she said he would give the rich a tax break, and he didn’t respond to any of the programs she mentioned she is proposing including giving first time home buyers assistance, or money to families for their children’s first year of life. He had no program he could mention at all, except tariffs on everything. He had no way to really rebut Harris when she talked about economists saying his tariff plans would cost the average American nearly $4,000 a year. 

When the moderators asked Trump, if he would have done anything different, now knowing what happened on January 6, 2021, he simply doubled down saying he won the election, and said no one in the mob did anything wrong and the only one who died was on his side. The woman who was breaking into the House of Representatives chamber. Harris smartly reminded listeners; many police were injured by Trump’s mob, and some even died. I think she missed out reminding him his Vice President had to escape, and was threatened with hanging. But then she only had a couple of minutes on each of these things. She did take it too him when he kept talking about getting the most votes of any President running for reelection when she said, and yes, Biden got more and the American people ‘fired’ you. She goaded him on the issue of his rallies and he took the bait.

Any rational person who watched this debate saw a strong woman, who spoke intelligently, and passionately. A woman who would be respected around the world. They saw a man who was clearly out of control, yelling his lies, and being generally irrational. After the debate I enjoyed hearing former New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie say how irrational Trump sounded, and how well he felt Harris did. The CNN instant poll mirrored that. It was a poll of debate watchers and Harris won by nearly two to one, 63-37. Donald Trump is now the oldest man to run for president, and it sounds like he is actually losing it. 

Again, I believe Harris did what she had to in this debate, and now will have to follow it up for the next eight weeks. All those who support her will have to work their asses off to ensure the gains she made in this debate will translate to the ballot on Nov. 5. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

In conjunction with World Pride 2025, the Rainbow History Project is creating an exhibit on the evolution of Pride. In “Dawn of a New Era of Pride Politics,” we discuss how fewer than a dozen picketers in the 1960s grew the political power to celebrate openness, address police brutality, and rally hundreds of thousands to demand federal action.

By the mid-1980s, the LGBTQ community’s political demands and influence had grown. The AIDS crisis took center stage across the nation and locally. Pride events morphed from the entertainment of the 1970s into speeches, rallies, and protests. Groups like ACT UP, Inner City Aids Network, and GLAA made protests and public pressure year-round events, not just Gay Pride Day. Blacklight, which was the first national Black gay periodical, ran an in-depth cover story on AIDS and its impact on the community in 1983:

“The gay community has to think in terms of what it can do to reduce the incidence of AIDS,” a writer noted in the Q&A section of the article. He added, “If your partner has AIDS that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t show care and concern, and just throw him out… There should be support groups that would help gay people who have AIDS and not just shun them.”

Just about 10 years later, however, support extended to activism, the onus not just on gay people to reduce the incidence of AIDS. On Oct. 11, 1992, ACT UP protesters threw the ashes of their loved ones onto the White House lawn to protest government inaction and negligence.

“If you won’t come to the funeral, we’ll bring the funeral to you,” one protester said about President Bush, according to the National Park Service. 

The Ashes Action and many other protests brought awareness to the issues of the day – the epidemic, government ignorance, and police brutality, among others.

When the first High Heel Race began on Halloween 1986 at JR.’s Bar and Grill, a popular 17th Street gay bar, about 25 drag queens ran up 17th Street, N.W., in their high heels from JR.’s to the upstairs bar at Annie’s Paramount Steakhouse, where they then took a shot and ran back to JR.’s. It was joyous and grew in popularity yearly despite impacting the locals’ “peace, order, and quiet,” according to the Washington Blade in 1991.

In 1990, though, pushback from the neighborhood community against the High Heel Race meant its official cancellation in 1991 – no coordinators, no queens, and no planning. However, despite statements that it wouldn’t occur, people still came. Roughly 100 police officers arrived to break up the crowd for causing a public disturbance. They injured people with nightsticks and arrested four gay men. D.C. residents Drew Banks and Dan Reichard planned to file brutality charges, and lesbian activist Yayo Grassi had her video camera, recording the scene.

“This will set back a lot of the good will between the Gay community and the police,” said Tracy Conaty, former co-chair of the Gay Men and Lesbian Women Against Violence, in a 1991 interview with the Blade. “What people will see and remember now is that police used excessive force on a group of peaceful crowd because of their homophobia.” 

Other protests advocated for equal representation. D.C.’s 1948 sodomy law was first repealed by the City Council in 1981 – but Congress overturned the repeal. Still, gay activists urged the D.C. Council to consider action. 

“Here in the district, we have been thwarted by a bunch of nutty fundamentalists from other places, and so the whole population of Washington remain habitual, recidivist, repetitive, villains, held hostage by a small group of noisy fascists,” Frank Kameny said at a 1992 rally. A successful repeal of the law passed subsequently in 1993, and this time, Congress did not interfere.

Our WorldPride 2025 exhibit, “Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington,” centers the voices of the event organizers and includes the critics of Pride and the intersection of Pride and other movements for equal rights and liberation. But we need your help to do that: we are looking for images and input, so take a look around your attic and get involved.

Vincent Slatt volunteers as director of archiving at the Rainbow History Project. Walker Dalton is a member of RHP. See rainbowhistory.org to get involved.