Oh dear. Back in the day it used to be renowned the world over for its high standard of journalism.
These days it is getting harder and harder to tell The Times apart from its tabloid stablemate The Sun.
Take this gem from today's edition.
"Scientists keep moths in check by persuading males to be gay."
Persuading - yes that's right kids - scientists can 'persuade' moths to change their sexual identity.
Oh no, hold on, that's not quite right.
"Experts have come up with the novel solution of tricking the males of the species into thinking that they are gay."
OK, so now moths, who have "tiny brains," are being "tricked" into "thinking" they are gay.
Come again? So scientists are playing psychological games with moths and changing their sexuality?
No, not really, its just more borderline homophobic, sloppy and inaccurate reporting.
What is actually happening is that:
"Scientists are using a powder that spreads female pheromones - the smell of sexual attraction - and confuses the male moths, thus slowing the breeding.
"The powder is left near breeding grounds and, when larvae hatch, they are coated in it. Other male moths are then tempted naturally to make contact with them, believing them to be female."
The moths are not being tricked into thinking they are "gay" but merely given the impression that some other male moths are females.
So gay men are attracted to other men because we think they are women and we are "confused."
That is The Times definition of 'gay' - when using the word 'gay' in The Times, that is one of the acceptable definitions.
There are so many things wrong with all of this. Clearly, as 'science' reporting it is laughable. It shows an ignorance of the nature of sexuality and of the intelligence of insects.
It insults gay people by implying that labels like 'gay' can just be applied to anything, even moths, and incorrectly too.
Oh well. Our expectations are lowered already.
Ermmm, WHAT?!?! What the f**k are you going on about? As a gay man myself, people like you completely frustrate me and absolutely piss me off something chronic; STOP GLORYING IN SELF PITY!!!! I fail to see how this article is insulting. It gives the reader a clear impression of what is being done, and in my mind, in no way implies any homophobia. You think the world is out to get you don't you because you are gay! Well here's a message for you mate - JUST F**CKING GET OVER IT! You're gay! So what! Stop bloody assuming the world is against you. Can you not bear the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there are people out there who actually don't give a shit whether you are gay or straight. Stop giving gay people a bad name by constantly having a hissy fit just because you think people are always out to attack you. It's people like you who made life very difficult for me at school.
AGHHHhhhhh lol, just go hide under a rock somewhere where no one can insult you.
Posted by: Andrew | August 08, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Andrew, you are not by any chance connected with'The Times', are you? Next time you post a response leave out the capital letters and try to present your response wtih some maturity.
Posted by: Mike | August 09, 2007 at 06:07 PM
I apologise about the capital letters, but i stand by my argument. I sometimes worry that gay people are too easily insulted by things which are not meant in an insulting way. I'm not saying not to stand up for your rights and i absolutely abhore ignorance and discrimination against homosexuals, including the casual use of the word gay as "lame, stupid, idiotic", but at the same time i do wish people would stop throwing their arms in the air over every little thing; the first post says:
"So gay men are attracted to other men because we think they are women and we are "confused." That is The Times definition of 'gay' - when using the word 'gay' in The Times, that is one of the acceptable definitions"
Is that really what the times was saying?? After reading the article myself i don't think it was. Perhaps it slightly misused the word "gay", but i don't think they were implying we are a confused social group who are only attracted to men because we think they are women.
On another note....i'm usually more of a guardian reader (!).
Posted by: Andrew | August 10, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I think the 'casual homaphobia' thing is spot on: it's not saying 'lets go out an beet up Queers' but it IS making stupid assumptions about the nature of sexuality.
Oh yea and showing again how Newspapers have no one on their staff that knows anything about science.
Posted by: elizabeth veldon | August 12, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Good God, get over yourselves people - and spell correctly!
Bravo Andrew, and keep those capitals coming. When will the gay mafia stop keep trawling through the media trying to find something a right wing person has said and trying to whip up some sort of horror.
Elizabeth needs to calm down "they are not saying beat up gays but", the way you jump from one point to another you should try out for the Olympics.
Most gays are not oppressed, but sometimes commentators seem to try to want that impression put across. Stop it.
I am the youngest of three brothers and work in construction, and have never ever been "oppressed" or "discriminated against". Why is it that those in the media are so paranoid? Don't you realise that you just put people's backs up by constantly moaning?
Jumping on a story because it is in The Times. Who's prejudiced now?
Posted by: Julian The Wonderhorse | August 17, 2007 at 03:40 PM