Today’s Washington Post style section today has a profile of Joe Solomonese, the President of the gay activist group Human Rights Campaign. It contains this unusual sentence:
So it’s now acceptable to refer to social conservative groups as “haters” in the pages of the Washington Post? Regardless of where you come down politically, this is deplorable journalistic practice.
UPDATE — I should be scrupulously fair here, so let’s look at this in full context:
He’s not talking about conservative groups such as Focus on the Family. Solmonese is not talking about the haters. He’s talking about the furious: Gay activists and bloggers who think well-heeled nonprofits like HRC are too appeasing, too accepting of incremental change, too insidery. They have coined a term for their derision: “Gay Inc.”
I think from the context, it draws a clear distinction between between what is and is not being talked about. That would equate Focus on the Family and “haters” — especially since it doesn’t doesn’t define what “haters” we’re talking about as a third distinct group, when the other two groups are defined specifically. I know I’m not the only one who read it that way.
It’s also possible that the writer meant “haters” in some less offensive/slangy way. But in the midst of a story about gay rights, throwing around the word hate casually is not helpful to enhancing anyone’s understanding.
