As the Washington Blade reports, media executive Sarah Kate Ellis will become the next president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
She sounds like a savvy media pro, but do we really need GLAAD to remain a “media watchdog”? I’d prefer to see GLAAD return to its long-abandoned roots and actively engage and debate with those who don’t support gay equality. Instead, it either nitpicks at the networks for (still) not having enough LGBT characters, or issues press releases supporting the progressive agenda—denouncing the Supreme Court ruling that timed-out parts of the Voting Rights Act and the Trayvon Martin verdict, etc. To paraphrase snarkily, Give us money so we can keep sending out press releases and holding big fundraisers with our Hollywood celebrity friends.
In contrast, with no budget to speak of, IGF contributing authors John Corvino and Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done far more to actively engage and publicly debate those on the anti-gay right.
We’ll see if Ellis intends to move GLAAD beyond the limited role it has set for itself over the past decade in order to become, once again, a serious organization, like the Anti-Defamation League on which it was modeled. Or if GLAAD instead continues to be just another liberal bandwagon with few actual accomplishments.
More. One of GLAAD’s low points. As I noted earlier this year, Fox News anchors were courted by GLAAD to attend the group’s annual media awards hoop-la, and when they did, GLAAD issued a stinging denunciation of Fox News and its anchors for, among other things, attending the event. If the anchors hadn’t shown up, I suppose GLAAD would have issued a stinging denunciation. Which is all the more pathetic, since the views expressed by Fox News anchors and commentators aren’t monolithic and are becoming better on gay issues. No thanks to GLAAD.
Furthermore. Reader Jared123 comments, perceptively:
Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).
22 Comments for “GLAAD Needs a Mission Update”
posted by jared123 on
Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).
posted by Kosh III on
“supporting the progressive agenda—the Voting Rights Act,…”
Since when is voting a leftist issue? I mean aside from the Regressives who are engaged in voter suppression.
posted by Dong on
Based on this comment one can reasonably presume that Stephen is in favor of voter suppression as a way for the GOP to regain electoral success. It’s unfortunate the GOP has no new ideas to persuade the electorate to vote for them.
posted by craigG on
Because there is no voter fraud in America, and no community organizers would ever want to encourage the ineligible to vote, and if we require valid ID to vote, next it will be necessary to board a plane or cash a check.
From Steve Chapman’s column: “Texas and South Carolina wanted to require voters to present a government-issued photo ID when they show up at the polls. Under the Voting Rights Act, they were barred from doing so. Indiana wanted to impose the same rule. It was allowed. Was this because the requirements were radically different? No. Because there are no black people in Indiana? No. Because Hoosiers get driver’s licenses at birth? No. It’s because what qualifies as racial discrimination in some places does not qualify as racial discrimination there.”
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/27/the-voting-rights-act-was-made-for-a-sim
posted by houndentenor on
I’m just going to ignore the last part because up to the final “left-liberal agenda” rant you were making very good points without being divisive.
I agree that GLAAD needs to review it’s mission. A new director is the perfect time to do so. They also need to focus on their main issue. It’s fine for everyone involved to have an opinion about the Trayvon Martin case but they should keep that on their own personal twitter accounts or blogs. It’s not an issue about which GLAAD needs to issue a statement.
My main complaint about GLAAD though is how easily they can be bought off by major media outlets. I’d like to see them advocate for positive portrayals of gay people in the media and fair treatment of our issues in the media. There’s lots of room for criticism of all the news outlets. Most frustrating (and it happens on all of them) is when an anchor sits by and allows an anti-gay bigot to make claims that are simply not backed up by the very studies they quote or to use discredited “studies”. It happens all the time, even in the so-called “liberal media”. They could easily be calling out CNN and the broadcast networks at least as often as Fox for these things. The only way to get the media airheads to shape up is to publicly humiliate them when they don’t do their jobs. GLAAD should do that and I suspect they don’t because their funding comes from donations from the very media corporations they ought to be criticizing. That’s a real problem and until they fix that, I don’t have much optimism for any improvement from the organization. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.
posted by Kosh III on
I wrote my first response in haste as the point stuck out at me.
On reflection, I’d add that GLADD has not really been a consideration for me. They are non-existent here in the South.
For that matter, so is Log Cabin, Corvino, Rauch and others who supposedly advocate for equal rights for gay citizens. I’d challenge them to come out of their comfy blue enclaves. Lobby the Legislature for gay rights in Mississippi or Texas. Visit conservative bastions like Sylacauga AL or Calhoun GA. I looked at Corvino’s site, he speaks at universities. When’s the last time he spoke on gay rights at Regents? Liberty University? Oral Roberts University?
It works both ways you know.
posted by Don on
Voting became a “progressive” issue as the right became more successful in its agenda of the last 30 years. So it kept going further. A core belief of the hard right, but not republicans generally, is that people vote themselves free checks to be paid from taxing the wealthy. Free healthcare, ‘crazy checks’ to replace missing welfare, food stamps, all kinds of free things. You can’t let those people vote. Because the other side will tempt them with free money for votes.
That is when it became a left/right issue. That isn’t what most on the right actually believe. They too have a hard time seeing people too lazy or disorganized to find work to have the ability to vote themselves free money. But the FEMA concentration camps for whites crowd are on that bus. It’s akin to the old adage “Arkansas voted Governor Clinton into the presidency because they wanted him out of their state”
wow. wish a had a nickel for every time I heard that one.
I don’t think GLAAD will do as Stephen suggests, but he is right. So much of our politics is about teams now and so few are willing to jump offsides no matter how egregious the act seems to be. Women’s groups defending Clinton for Lewinsky and Maverick McCain defending torturing people and violating a treaty Reagan negotiated.
Politics is a team sport. Pick a side. heck, even the NRA has joined a particular side. and they used to be for anybody who refused to ban guns. but all that is gone now.
Fox News and GLAAD have picked sides. I don’t even blame them for it anymore. It just seems to be the way we do things now.
posted by AJR on
As a long-time supporter of the Anti-Defamation League, which for many decades has led the fight against anti-Semitism (and was apparently GLAAD’s model), I can assure you that it is not a group just for Jewish liberals. I know Democrats and Republicans who enthusiastically support the ADL. If the organization were to weigh in on unrelated partisan issues, the leadership would be toppled for such stupidity, and rightly so.
In recent years, as American anti-Semitism has waned, the ADL has adjusted its mission by supporting Jewish heritage and education projects and, very significantly, aiding in the fight against anti-Semitism around the world. It’s truly unfortunate that GLAAD can’t find enough homophobia in the U.S. or elsewhere, apparently, to occupy its staff.
posted by Jorge on
Jared123’s comment is quite perceptive, and about more than GLAAD.
GLAAD’s press releases get attention on a national level and are something of a model in progressive thought. They are not a model of discretion or good judgment.
The activism vacuum has long since been filled, usually locally, and with better judgment.
posted by Jorge on
On second thought, let me defer to Kosh III on that last.
posted by Don on
I don’t think the ADL is that fair of a comparison. Jews have the holocaust in their history (we do too, but we’re nearly invisible in that history even though they have worked hard to remind people it happened to gays too). Jews also enjoy the status of being a religion. Conservatives vociferously support no bullying on the basis of religious identification.
Conservatives, however, support bullying of gays. It is what “scares us straight” and have fought hard against any attempt to take the social stigma out of being gay. They do not support us being beat up, but public shame and harassment is believed to be important. Because they believe being gay is against God. We must be shamed into “changing.” Their behavior and methods make much more sense when you understand that basic principle. (this explains why the party says “I don’t understand why increasing income inequality is a problem.” It’s economic Darwinism. and it’s a great point until somebody breaks out the guillotine.)
True tea party types don’t believe in government-sponsored shame and harassment. They think government should be out of this business altogether. But a conservative mindset does see great value in “the school of hard knocks” and hates squishy liberals making “wimps” out of our kids. I think the holocaust/religious identity is what has spared the ADL the same opposition.
So, for me at least, it’s hard to say they are “too progressive” in their agenda. Their solution comes off as progressive any way they try to pursue it. The ADL applying the same techniques do not appear to be progressive in their agenda at all. That’s all I’m saying.
As for Corvino speaking at Liberty University, I just can’t imagine that at all. Maybe he should do a lecture to the Catholic Cardinals and another to Orthodox jews? I’m sure they will want to hear how they are wrong and why.
Should he speak at Univ. of Tennessee in Knoxville? Univ. of Ala. at Tuscaloosa? Ole Miss? Of course. And I bet he’d get an invitation. Maybe he has. But to suggest that private institutions pay to have him speak to tell their religious membership they’re teachings are wrong ain’t gonna happen.
It’s kind of why Liberty has never invited an orthodox jew to explain why Jesus was just a man and why Talmudic schools don’t have Jews for Jesus address their crowds. It cuts against everything they stand for.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe he should do a lecture to the Catholic Cardinals and another to Orthodox jews? I’m sure they will want to hear how they are wrong and why.
This reminds me of a local controversy around a Catholic high school that sought to invite a group ministering to gay Catholics on campus. You are aware of how the Catholic Church ministers to gays?
So last week the school “postponed” it. The local gay rights group wants multiple voices to be heard.
And of course the Orthodox Jews had “Trembling Before G_d” puttering about a few years ago.
No need for outsiders to stir up trouble. The insiders are quite capable of causing all kinds of tremulous dissonance all on their own.
posted by Kosh III on
“A core belief of the hard right, but not republicans generally, is that people vote themselves free checks to be paid from taxing the wealthy.”
The substantial welfare is paid to the wealthy, who can afford to buy politicians and tax breaks.
Boeing paid not ONE penny to IRS from 2001 to 2010. GE, Verizon, and many more go years without paying, sometimes getting billions back. And what do these capitalist “job creators” do with this wealth? They pay themselves millions in undeserved salaries, they ship jobs to RED China and COMMUNIST Vietnam.
Ann Romney can get a $77,000 tax break for her fraking horse! Who’s the welfare queen?
posted by Kosh III on
“Should he speak at Univ. of Tennessee in Knoxville? Univ. of Ala. at Tuscaloosa? Ole Miss? Of course. And I bet he’d get an invitation. Maybe he has.”
If he has, then he’d probably say so but I don’t know him, never heard his name(or Rauch) until I visited here. They’re invisible here in the truly red part of the country.
My mention of private theocratic schools was just for example. Lobbying their “conservative” colleagues in the Legislature in MS, AL or elsewhere would be more effective. But I won’t hold my breath.
Certainly here in TN the only people advocating for equal rights are progressives.
Log Cabin doesn’t even have a chapter here, or in MS or AL.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–Groups like GLAAD
Oh, please dear G-d. Let this please, pretty please be another gay conservative attack on GLAAD and, with sugar on top, please let the attack try and obscure the facts. ;0)
The number of LGBT characters in television [films, video games, comic books, etc) (or the number of openly gay people working behind and in-front of the camera or in the comic book or video game industry) is important, although the two often get treated as one and the same….social media has also changed the name of the game in many ways.
Things have certainly gotten better then when Vito wrote his book (I am finishing up the 1986 edition, and I will try to locate the documentary some time later). Their is another guy who focuses more on television and things have certainly gotten better in that field. A similar thing has happened with the comic book industry and the video game industry. Although, I also found GLAAD staff to not be terribly savoy about these two media industries.
Real news coverage — not infotainment or the bulk of the Pravada-like-BS seen on Fox News — has certainly improved. The professional press and news staff are — generally — better at covering gay news items like actual professionals. I am not sure how much has changed in terms of being a professional reporter or news caster.
I am not sure where the attack on the Voting Rights Act came into play here. I mean, if you do not think that the right to vote or hold office or have a political opinion is not relevant to gay people, then you might want to see professional help or something.
BTW; I suspect that most of the ‘public figure-celebrity’ folk who attend the GLAAD parties are probably (given their success and the industry) reasonably pro-business/economically conservative.
They may be liberal or center-left on civil rights or civil liberties — again, not surprising given the industry –, but Hollywood is certainly a rugged capitalist-survival-of-the-fittest industry.
GLAAD would probably welcome support from Republicans who are socially center-left/liberal, but very few of them exist today.
I mean you got some ‘Hollywood libertarians’ (who like to hang out with the Hollywood conservatives). Clint Eastwood (who has publicly expressed support for gay marriage as part of his libertarian plank).
Most of the Hollywood conservatives and libertarians tend to only talk mostly about economic issues in public or seem to agree with the social agenda or the religious right.
Who else might GLAAD invite to its fancy parties? Some of the Fox News reporters might be supportive (including a certain, semi-closeted, man), but is GLAAD prohibited from being critical of Fox News?
posted by Jorge on
Conservatives vociferously support no bullying on the basis of religious identification.
Unless you happen to be Muslim, Wiccan, pagan, and especially atheist. Then it becomes a matter of holding the line against religious extremism. This is meant as both sarcastic and dead serious.
I realize the gay factor is a more politically correct draw, but conservatives don’t like laundry lists of protected classes on anti-bullying laws.
Real news coverage — not infotainment or the bulk of the Pravada-like-BS seen on Fox News
I think you mean Pravda. You need to watch more Fox News. Come to think of it so do I. You speak of how gay news is covered. This I would like to hear more about, because in my viewing, Fox News Channel is about the only place where I ever see “No Wonder People Think We’re Nuts” news put into a center-left context of institutional homophobia.
Sometimes it’s also put into a center-right context, of course, and that is rather annoying.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Another Thanksgiving has come and gone, observed this year in the afterglow of several of the most remarkable advances in the right of gay men and women to hold respected seats at the table of life in these United States.
But has there any been hint of gratitude in this forum of for all that has happened in the past half century and for all those who worked and risked their lives and livelihoods to make it all happen? Nope. Most of those people were/are of a generally liberal inclination, you know, but maybe once ayear is not too often to acknowledge the good they have done, without hurling any zingers, regardless of how much one has a generally conservative inclination.
So I say thank you, GLAAD, for all you have done positively. Without you, our portrayals in movies and television would still be played by Edward Everett Horton, Clifton Webb, and Paul Lynde (all talented actors, mind you, even if they did reinforce gay stereotypes in the minds of the public).
OK, that attitude of gratitude moment having been observed, you can resume the denigrations and deprecations now.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Great reminder Dale. However, I would’ve liked to see this blurb of yours on Gay Patriot. They need this more than the crowd over here.
posted by Jorge on
Hub-dub, thanks for the grub.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–Conservatives vociferously support no bullying on the basis of religious identification.
Well, overt anti-Semitism would — probably be frown upon. However, beyond that if you are a Muslim or a Wiccan or a Christian who does not agree with the religious right, then some conservatives may feel obligated to bullying you.
Bullying in schools can happen for many different reasons — not just religion or gender sexual orientation. However, most of the vicious bullying is directed — at least from what I see and hear — at kids that are not ‘real’ men or women or are not looking like supermodels.
Also, schools are sometimes put in the position — by desire or design — where they cannot really even acknowledge that they have gay students.
—I think you mean Pravda.
Goodness! That was a bit of slip. Yes, the Fox News channel is the right-wing version of Pravda. That drives its coverage of gay news items and everything else.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
When you get into the more suburbia or rural and — often more culturally conservative — school districts, having a Muslim or Jewish student might be something of an exotic novelty (granted, that is a problem in itself…not unlike foreign exchange student).
Also, just about every public school has gay students (depending on what statistic you believe). Regardless of the schools ethnic or racial or religious demographics, it is going to have gay students, they just are often prevented from existing.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am thankful for the work that GLAAD did –and folks like Vito. I been trying to rent some of the older ‘gay films’. I just rented ‘The Boys in the Band’. Wow. That fact that this was treated (at the time) as being forward thinking and a ‘landmark of truth’ is scary.
Things have certainly gotten better — at least in terms of more accurate and diverse characters in films and tv shows. Although, most gay actors — even successful ones — are probably still in the closet.
Comic books and video games have gone through a similar process as Vito described in his book. You are more likely to see gay characters in the major comic book publishers and video games have started to ‘go their’ more often.
Frankly, I am a bit skeptical of the ‘anti-GLAAD’ bandwagon that gay conservatives like to swim in. Yes, any organization has to take stock, see what its done right and so on and so forth.
However, I find it odd when gay conservatives accuse GLAAD of only hosting fancy parties — which I suspect that is how quite a bit of dealing gets done in music industry/tv/Hollywood . Its odd, because they attack GLAAD for having the parties and they also seem to be upset that they were not invited.