Maybe the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation needs to focus more. From recent press releases:
This morning reports ran regarding GLAAD’s position on a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and put forth false accusations that GLAAD is unable to effectively work with media entities that we also receive corporate sponsorships from. It was also wrongly reported that GLAAD endorses AT&T’s position on net neutrality. GLAAD does not endorse AT&T’s position. GLAAD believes that equal, fair and universal access to the internet is vital to our community and to our national dialogue. . . .Groups as diverse as the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, LULAC, the National Council for Negro Women and the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce have spoken out in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. . .
AT&T, Time Warner cable Pull Advertising from
‘José Luis Sin Censura’
GLAAD and NHMC first filed an FCC complaint against “José Luis Sin Censura,” distributed by Liberman Broadcasting, earlier this year. … The program frequently feature blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights.
Ok, this particular show also, per GLAAD, features anti-gay language and incitements. But an FCC complaint seeking government action rather than public pressure?
More. GLAAD writes to the FCC: “We salute President Obama’s vision of an America in which everyone has high-speed access capable of meeting the demands of distance learning and telehealth programs.”
GLAAD’s current president, Jarrett Tomás Barrios, is a former Democratic state senator from Massachusetts. Maybe he should have stayed in politics. … Oh, he has.
Furthermore. Criticism is coming from the left as well. Activist/blogger Michael Petrelis questions whether Joe Jervis should return his GLAAD award and writes: “My understanding of this latest GLAAD controversy is that the Astroturf, slaves to its corporate sponsors and Democratic Party friendly organization is again using its resources for highly questionable advocacy.”
More still. From The Stranger, “What the Hell Is Going on at GLAAD?“
Update. Jarrett Barrios has resigned as President of GLAAD.
10 Comments for “Dost GLAAD Protest Too Much?”
posted by Carl on
I thought this was what conservatives said GLAAD or HRC was supposed to do? Focus on causes that aren’t about gay rights, and causes that Republicans also support?
Meanwhile, it hasn’t had any attention at this site, but 2 polls have been released showing support or near-support for Minnesota’s gay marriage ban.
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8539&MediaType=1&Category=26
http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/05/26/28668/new_poll_says_51_percent_favor_constitutional_amendment_banning_gay_marriage
Now that there’s an extremely good chance Minnesota will ban gay marriage (and depending on how the wording is interpreted, some conservatives may say it goes after more than marriage), is there any thought here on strategy or ideas?
I hope this won’t just be ignored until after the ban passes, when it’s time to tell us that HRC is worthless and that if gays were friends with Republicans and not such out of control liberals, then the ban never would have passed.
posted by Jorge on
“Pride at Work released a statement today:
The proposed AT&T / T-Mobile merger has significant impact for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers. AT&T is a union business with a good record on LGBT issues. In contrast, call center workers at T-Mobile have been fighting to form a union, but T-Mobile has been aggressively trying to stop them.
In a majority of states, workers can be legally fired or discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Because of the lack of federal employment protections and the lack of relationship recognition, a union is often the only protection for LGBT workers – and the most powerful way to have a voice on the job…
Actually this is one of the better pro-union arguments I’ve seen. I often tell my union reps I don’t have to go through the union, I can use state or federal law. Well…
At first I was skeptical about why GLAAD would want to endorse a corporate merger, but I give this a pass. I still think they’re contemptable loony lefties, but this isn’t a bad thing for such a group to do, especially if they’re the biggest gay group that supports this merger.
But an FCC complaint seeking government action rather than public pressure?
1) Why not?
2) List of organizations supporting GLAAD’s and the National Hispanic Media Coalition’s letter to the FCC (as per GLAAD): Women’s Media Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc., Council for Hispanic Ministries, United Church of Christ, National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), HONOR Fund, Media Literacy Project, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Center for Media Justice, Media Alliance
Nosotros, Sue Wilson, Broadcast Blues, The Hispanic Federation, UNID@S, United States Hispanic Leadership Institute, Center for New Community, Equality California, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Puerto Rico Para Tod@s, Bienestar, The Latino Equality Alliance, HOPE (Hispanas Organized for Political Equality), Media Justice League, Asian American Justice Center, PFLAG National,
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, The Trevor Project,
Maria Luna, Democratic District Leader 71 A.D. New York
I still think GLAAD is a bunch of contemptable loony lefties, but here it appears they’re the first major gay group to take notice. Point them in the right direction and they use their power and smarts to do good things. If one of the more moderate groups had noticed first, maybe the tactics would have been different, maybe not.
posted by Houndentenor on
If the description of the program provided by your link is accurate, then there is certainly enough to warrant an FCC complaint, even without the objections to anti-gay slurs. Are you actually claiming that a complaint was out of line? Read the description again.
posted by esurience on
I agree that endorsing a corporate merger makes GLAAD look like a joke. (I had to state my agreement since I give Mr. Miller crap about everything he posts).
As for the FCC thing… the FCC does regulate over-the-air broadcasts, because there is a limited broadcast spectrum and it is considered a public resource. (And don’t even try it, libertarians, there’s just no way that not considering it a public resource would work, and it certainly wouldn’t be in the public interest to do that. Although I know that forcing private ownership of something which it is only sensible to have public ownership of is your thing.. so I’m sure you’ll try). Somebody needs to make decisions about the acceptable uses of limited public resources.
The FCC doesn’t regulate the content of cable or satellite TV (nor should they). And if you don’t want them to ever regulate those things, it’s important to understand why it makes sense for them to regulate the public airwaves — because that’s our argument *against* them regulating private communications channels.
posted by Jorge on
As for the FCC thing… the FCC does regulate over-the-air broadcasts, because there is a limited broadcast spectrum and it is considered a public resource. (And don’t even try it, libertarians, there’s just no way that not considering it a public resource would work, and it certainly wouldn’t be in the public interest to do that.
Limited broadcast spectrum?
Well since I’m not a libertarian I’ll go the big government route: the FCC ultimately answers to the people. They only get to do what we allow them to. And I think they should treat TV broadcasting a a business, albeit one that can have profound effects on the community, not as a public service.
posted by esurience on
Limited broadcast spectrum?
Yes, the reason why your cell phone works, and WiFi, and over-the-air television broadcasts, and walky-talkys, is that the FCC regulates what part of the radio spectrum certain devices are allowed to use. If they didn’t regulate that, using those devices would be impossible, because everyone would be broadcasting on the same frequencies and it would cause interference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum
There’s a limited number of television stations that can broadcast over-the-air. Someone needs to decide who to give broadcast licenses to, and under what conditions to do so.
posted by libhomo on
GLAAD used to be such an important civil rights organization. They now have become feckless and corrupt.
posted by Tomjefferson on
I get skeptical when communications are owned by fewer and fewer people, but GLAAD should probably focus on the impact this has on how media depicts gay people and what it is like to be gay and work in the media/communications business.
Yes, GLAAD does some silly things, people on the far left and far right tend to have that habit, but they also do a lot of good things, which would probably not get addressed without them.
posted by Jorge on
GLAAD writes to the FCC: “We salute President Obama’s vision of an America in which everyone has high-speed access capable of meeting the demands of distance learning and telehealth programs.”
…
Activist/blogger Michael Petrelis… writes: “My understanding of this latest GLAAD controversy is that the Astroturf, slaves to its corporate sponsors and Democratic Party friendly organization is again using its resources for highly questionable advocacy.”
Yes, well, this is a fine example of why you don’t put the cart before the horse. By the time the cavalry arrives the wagon train’s already been raided.
posted by Jorge on
In today’s headlines on Yahoo.com:
“GLAAD President Resigns Over AT&T Endorsement Controversy”
Whaaaaaat?
The article is by the Atlantic Wire.
“Nonetheless Barrios, who was at the helm of GLAAD for 23 months, only seemed to increase scrutiny with his attempts to deflect it.”
Yeah, that’ll do it. I thought they were proudly taking an unorthodox position.