THE ADVOCATE'S MISTAKE ON S.F.'S GAY BATHHOUSES
Editor
The Advocate
Los Angeles, CA
Dear Editor:
In his April 23 opinion piece for the advocate.com web site, Who's SAR-y now?, by Charles Karel Bouley ll, a gay talk show host for KGO radio in San Francisco, he states the following.
"In 1982 they were arguing in San Francisco whether or not to close the bathhouses. . . They did finally close the bathhouses in 1985," which is true. But Bouley then goes on to erroneously make the claims "they reopened shortly thereafter. And now they are back and as popular ever." [1]
Nothing could be further from the truth. The gay bathhouses did not reopen after the city banned them, and they are not operating again in San Francisco, nor are they as popular as ever in this town because they are prohibited.
I have no idea where your columnist got his misinformation from, but I am requesting that you immediately post a correction on the advocate.com web site, and in the future, before running such columns about bathhouses here, that you assign a fact checker to investigate all claims made by the writer.
Lies about the bathhouses miraculously reopening in the only American city that shut them down in a misguided effort to control HIV and STD infections should not be allowed to stand as truth on your site.
Just this week, the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized about the closure of the bathhouses. "City officials know too well what can happen when there's a slow response to a public health crisis, as witnesses to the gay public bath debacle 20 years ago can attest. That sad chapter in history shows what can happen when political sensitivities override sound public health policy," said the paper. [2]
If the bathhouses for gay men were indeed open again and flourishing, you could count on the Chronicle to mention it in editorials.
I look forward to a correction about Bouley's errors posted on the Advocate's web site.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Ph: 415-621-6267
Sources:
1. http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/888/888_bouley.asp
2. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/07/ED300690.DTL
No comments:
Post a Comment