{"article":{"id":15923,"heading":"Greed and the Gay Press","author":"Ryan Gierach","created":"2002-04-10 21:40:50","modified":"2005-08-15 00:55:49","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:55:49","article":"
The Danger Within-----
by Ryan Gierach
The gay press has long been a bulwark against those who would keep you from enjoying equality by exposing the danger from without.
But recently, the gay press has shown signs of caving to advertisers’ whims, creating a new danger - that from within. The signs are many, the danger great.
In September a gay advertising brokerage catering to the gay press, Rivendell Marketing, bought the only gay editorial content syndication company in existence, Q Syndicate. That puts the primary broker of ads in the gay press - they sell ads in hundreds of gay publications - in control of some editorial content in those very same gay rags.
That creates a conflict of interest - when the wall between editorial and advertising crumbles, advertisers often seek to “soften” or even “kill” news that casts them in a bad light. Or, worse still, editors self-censor to avoid upsetting firms who pay the bills.
The chilling part of this “merger“ is the lack of attention the gay press paid it. Not one publication pointed out the potential conflict of interest. When I asked institutions like the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center for comment, I got stonewalled. One prominent institution’s activist told me, but only off the record, that she would fear going to corporations for donations if she commented on the merger.
How widespread is the fear of corporate interests? A few months ago I was to have written a feature article outlining the 10 gay-friendliest businesses for a national gay magazine. The piece was “killed” by the publisher a day before submission because, in his words, “I don’t want to lose ad dollars from those we don’t call friendly.”
That is true fear, when you fear reporting on progress.
Another example of conflicts of interest popped up in October when a “research study“ done by a public relations firm called OpusComm Group claimed to “reveal” that the “median combined household income of gay couples is $65,000, nearly fifty percent higher than the...U.S. median income of $40,800.”
Sean Cahill, policy director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), said, “That is bunk - and insulting. Study after study shows that is not true - gay men earn less and lesbians earn far less than straights.”
Cahill pointed out that PlanetOut, a major Internet gay news agency, echoed the study’s own language when it reported that the study “revealed” higher gay incomes. “They should have reported that OpusComm ‘claimed’ the phenomenon existed,“ he said. “PlanetOut took OpusComm’s word for it. That’s bad reporting. But more importantly, such false claims endanger our rights,” he said.
He referred to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Romer v Evans, in which Scalia parroted claims made by the right-wing that gay incomes were higher than heterosexuals and therefore gays were undeserving of anti-discrimination protection.
But why throw journalistic standards out the window?
In 2000, in the midst of a spate of nationwide mergers of formerly independent gay press outlets, PlanetOut announced they would purchase Advocate. Advocate and PlanetOut have since decided not to merge, but rather to “cooperate closely.”
Advocate also reported the “study‘s” claims as fact on their pages, without questioning their veracity. Tellingly, the Advocate acted as major media sponsor of OpusComm’s survey, supplying ad space to them for free. The Advocate also stands to benefit from higher ad revenue generated by the “results“ of the “study.”
Selective or slanted news reporting because of financial pressures takes place at the local level too, and perhaps, especially.
Recently, a Los Angeles paper, Frontiers, printed a six-part series on same-sex bi-national couple’s immigration woes. During this time immigration “attorney“ Cory Dyer advertised in Frontiers. Dyer, according police, claimed he could “solve” same-sex partners’ immigration troubles for $3000. He stole tens of thousands of dollars from desperate couples who faced either separation or exile.
Dyer is not an attorney. Investigations into his fraudulent dealings move forward in Redondo Beach, Los Angeles, and New York City.
Why not drop Dyer’s ads? Why not investigate Dyer’s activities?
“We don’t do so on the basis of one complaint,” said Frontiers’ publisher, David Gardner. “And investigating business practices of every advertiser would be a full-time job.” When asked if his paper would print a report on Dyer, he was non-committal. “Only if it becomes germane to our community.”
Am I missing something germane to this conversation?
What it sounds like is that the gay press is sometimes willing to pay their bills with your safety. It sounds like they are eager to print misinformation which might cost you equal protection - and will do so to pad their profits.
The gay press, under the guise of fighting for your equality, now propagates the basest of inequalities - information inequality. They withhold or distort the news you need to suit their own purpose - financial security.
What is more dangerous, our enemies, or those friends who fail us?\n","contact":"ryan.g@journalist.com","link":"www.geocities.com\/ryangierach","address":"400 S Lafayette Park Place #215","phone":"213) 386-5119","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Greed has taken over the reins of the gay press - interlocking friendships and mutual assistance pacts keep the real news of the community from seeing the light of day.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/04\/greed_and_.txt","filesize":"5.0 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/04\/15923.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}