The national section and the New York section of Sunday's Times both featured articles about gays.
The national section story is about a clothing-optional resort for men. It reports:
These rolling woods of the Ozarks — where a billboard along a major highway proclaims that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, where a "Jesus Saves" sign and other Christian symbols decorate front lawns — seem an unlikely place for gay people to feel comfortable being out and open.
But tucked in the backcountry here is a place where gay men are unabashedly celebratory and self-deprecating about their lives: Cactus Canyon Campground, a 700-acre, clothing optional, all-male hideaway.
In its 15th season, the campground has become so popular that the owners are in the process of tripling its RV capacity, adding more spaces for tents and installing a second pool.
Most surprising, perhaps, is the way local residents generally react to the camp nowadays: with a shrug, or maybe an awkward grin.
The Times reporter seems to be of the opinion that Christian symbols are ordinarily markers for violent anti-gay bigots, and is surprised to find out that the local residents are tolerant. The one with the real bias here is the Times reporter, or the readers he is catering to, who seems to start out with the assumption that rural Christians are hostile to gays. The article does report some past conflict between the resort and its neighbors, but it's certainly possible that a clothing-optional resort located in an urban, secular environment might encounter some similar resistance. Anyway, this is "news" only if you share the biased assumption underlying the article, which is that rural Christians are violent homophobes. What's next, Times articles about how "surprising, perhaps" it is to find out that some other tired stereotypes turn out to be false? The "perhaps" is a clue that it's really not that surprising at all, nor particularly newsworthy.
The same can be said of the Times New York section feature about an 88-year-old man and an 89-year-old man who "have been together for 58 years," and who recall when "we all gravitated to the connection between the two trains" on the moving subway, "and that was sexville." Again, it's not really clear why this is newsworthy, or whether there's any other demographic group that the Times treats to such gauzy, almost advertorial treatment. The Times reports that, "In recent years, a few developers around the country have opened senior communities for gays and lesbians, yet so far none are in New York," without any critical voice asking whether such segregated housing is desirable or even legal.