I'd like to highlight some points that have been overlooked in the ongoing media dissection of this issue...
I first commenced my work as a New York Times stringer (freelance reporter) in October, 2001. I was thrilled to be writing for the newspaper of record. Since then, I've filed four stories and contributed to three others from my home in the mid-Hudson Valley of New York State.
This past January 12, The Times informed me, without warning, that they would no longer assign me work. Why? They cited a conflict of interest: my past affiliation with ACT UP, the AIDS activist group.
The Times does not want a reporter to have any political baggage. However, I was active in ACT UP from 1989-1990 chiefly, and have worked on perhaps four projects since then. My last involvement was writing a press release for them in December, 1999.
Conflict of interest? Never mind that my Times articles focused on reservoirs, farmers, the death of a local mayor and infanticide. AIDS or gay issues never entered the formula. So where's the so-called conflict of interest?
The New York Times' exhaustive Code of Ethics (available on their website) says much about maintaining a political neutrality while you toil for the Old Grey Lady. However, it cites nothing about forbidding political affiliations of years past. It simply tells you to steer clear of current affiliations. Save for my status as a registered Democrat, and community volunteer work with gay youth, I have no current activist affiliations.
The Times is picking and choosing when to apply this Code. They refuse to clarify their policy. The true story will emerge only when another person has been dismissed for past political involvement.
Until then, the question persists like a bad odor: Was my dismissal an act of simple retribution, since ACT UP was a strong critic of The New York Times' AIDS reportage in the 80s? Would a reporter who once worked for the NAACP or once marched against hunger receive the same dismissal?
Frankly, it's bracing to be singled out again as a renegade activist. It's been a long time since I was considered dangerous. Make no mistake: My work for ACT UP was the most important volunteerism of my life. We changed the face of the epidemic and helped millions around the world.
The irony is not lost on me, a long-struggling newspaper and magazine freelancer: For all my professional writing since 1982, the most important thing I have ever written was press releases for ACT UP.
The New York Times reaction smacks of blacklisting. How else to explain that I am forbidden to write for any section of The Times, be it Arts & Leisure, Escapes, House & Home, etc. How does past AIDS activism tar me as a prejudicial reporter and preclude writing about film or interior design or bed and breakfasts for The Times?
To quote the great Warren Zevon, I am accidentally like a martyr. As this country continues to swing to the Right, I wear my former affiliation with ACT UP as a badge of honor.
Filed under: Blotcher Blog