GLAAD just filed a letter with the FCC reversing their controversial support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger and coming out in full support of Net Neutrality. Looks like they listened to our advice on how to restore their image after the resignation of GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios, six GLAAD board members, and the infamous AT&T supporter Troupe Coronado.
So why the about-face?
From GLAAD’s press release:
“A rigorous review process considered GLAAD’s unique mission and concluded that while AT&T has a strong record of support for the LGBT community, the explanation used to support this particular merger was not sufficiently consistent with GLAAD’s work to advocate for positive and culture-changing LGBT stories and images in the media,” said [Mike Thompson, GLAAD’s Acting President following extensive discussion among GLAAD leadership and supporters.]
In affirming GLAAD’s support for the principle of net neutrality, Thompson wrote in the FCC letter: “GLAAD is a strong supporter of the general principle of net neutrality. Although this letter is not specific to any proposed or existing regulatory or legislative standards, we acknowledge that net neutrality is one of the principles most responsible for the Internet’s emergence as the dominant platform for free expression. A nondiscriminatory and neutral Internet has allowed new digital media initiatives and the blogosphere itself to flourish online. Net neutrality has cultivated the plethora of online resources available to otherwise isolated LGBT Americans seeking help with coming out, coping with and countering discrimination, suicide and HIV/AIDS prevention resources, community building and political organizing tools, and general self-expression. GLAAD’s own work has been effective thanks in large part to net neutrality.”
This is really great news for a few reasons. First off, GLAAD had no business commenting on the merger to begin, at least not for the inarticulate reasons they initially gave. This new statement shows they’re serious about their original mission statement and not about needlessly taking political stands in support of big telecoms (no matter how LGBT friendly AT&T is).
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Second, GLAAD’s newfound support for Net Neutrality will allow the organization to position itself as a queer leader in the fight for a free internet. GLAAD has great organizing potential and could mobilize a bunch of other LGBT orgs to take a political stand against any telecom or government body pushing for a regulated “pay-for-play” internet.
GLAAD should also consider drafting a statement further expounding on how Net Neutrality directly affects queer businesses, artists, and media outlets overall; such a statement would fit with GLAAD’s desire to expand positive depictions of LGBT in America online and off. At the very least they could assist other pro-Net Neutrality organizations in focusing queer-centric messaging for the imminent web battle.
jeff4justice
Ya’ll are more optimistic than I am.
1) There is no reason for me or any other low income LGBT person to donate to an LGBT group that has an Executive Director making a 6 figure salary. Defenders argue that a 6 figure salary helps attract “the best” – as we see with Jarrett Barrios, Geoff Kors, and Joe Solmonese this theory is absurd. I have no interest in donating to a gay millionaire. What’s more, a 6 figure salary is an excellent incentive to NOT work harder for advancing civil rights. Why work yourself out of a job if you make a 6 figure salary? A better idea would be to support chapter-based groups with local, grass-roots decision making processes – instead of top town/focus group tested/inflexible concepts forced from the top down. What’s more a better idea capping any ED salaries to two-figures, paying for more on-the-ground proactive field organizers instead of rich EDs, and ensuring paid staffers have livable wages and benefits.
2) Too many LGBT groups, while fostering LGBT label and classism segregation, are duplicating the same objectives and expenses wasting many of the dollars that LGBT people donate to them. The duplication in expenses includes web site costs, Executive Director salaries, and time spent “working on” the same issues/topics – take all of the major LGBT group’s actions regarding the Tracy Morgan scandal for example. Really? A handful of the major LGBT groups competed for media time just to repeat the same comments about Morgan while pathetically adding their reaction to him as another example of their accomplishments and why we need to donate to them. Why didn’t they just let one group such as GLAAD deal with it?
If you don’t think there are too many LGBT groups doing the same thing, think hard about why it’s necessary for PGLAG, GLSEN, and GSA to exist as separate organizations instead of them all merging. Does anyone have any comments about how this duplication is beneficial? Why do we need Immigration Equality & Out4Immigration? Why do we need Courage Campaign and Marriage Equality USA and EQCA and Get Equal?
The answer is probably because the most prominent or original group was unaccommodating to new ideas or the founders of the new group are part of a cooperate agenda and/or an executive director needs a new job.
3) Most of the major LGBT groups and big city LGBT groups do little to reach out to small town/rural/suburbia LGBT populations. Oh sure, sometimes they’re reactive if something happens in the news and presents them an opportunity to seize on a headline-grabbing story they can attach there name to. However, even when they have “field organizers” and/or have “chapter leaders” in regions, they often end up doing nothing proactively to reach out to small town/rural/suburbia LGBT populations – usually only reactive. I recently interviewed numerous LGBT group vendors at LA & SF Pride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J5MKYLhL9Y and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRCZ1ru-eo) and I asked the people I spoke with about their advice for small town LGBT folk. They mostly all answered “visit our web site for resources.” Bull! Clearly these groups are doing nothing to build long-lasting LGBT fellowship/socializing opportunities, support, education, and community involvement at the local level for LGBT folk.
Lastly, doesn’t the money that corporate foundations like ATT&T give to groups like GLAAD just come from the profit made off of customers? Wouldn’t it be better to stop donating to social issue causes and put that money into providing a better and cheaper product/service? As we see with the AT&T scandal, we the customers end up paying for nonprofits to be used as lobbying puppets. Here’s another example of waste. Why doesn’t AT&T put the money into improved service instead of lobbying nonprofits to do more lobbying for them? It’s completely insane! There seems to be something conspiracy-theoryish going on with how foundations and nonprofits and lobbying goes together. In the end, the consumer/donor is just paying more and more for less and less.
This is another example of how LGBT organizations taking donations from corporations is not always best for LGBT folk – consider the countless tobacco and alcohol companies that donate to LGBT groups/events and also buy ads in LGBT media.
All the equality in the world will not change anti-gay areas overnight. Even if marriage equality was still legal in California, there would still be many anti-gay areas in this state where LGBT are isolated and in fear. We’ve got to do some re-thinking here. In the meantime, donate to local on the ground activists and ignore the big LGBT groups that ignore you.
If you feel me on this, connect with me at jeff4justice.com – my social media links are on the left hand side.
-Jeff
—
Worth reading:
Corporate Philanthropy Inspires Trust: Does It Also Prompt Higher Profits?
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1638
Miss Understood
The fact that what happened went as far as it did makes it really difficult for me to imagine ever supporting GLAAD again.
Cam
This shows how far away from the communities these groups that supposedly represent gays have gotten.
1. GLAAD was doing something bad for the community, and the ONLY thing that changed their minds was when so much pressure was applied that their leader and multiple board members were forced to resign.
2. HRC came out against every lawsuit that ended up getting us marriage AND came out in opposition to the lawsuit that has so far struck down Prop 8 in CA. The ONLY thing that made them change direction somewhat was when the blogs and publications were calling for Joe Solomnase’s resignation when he was carrying water for the politicians who trying to not work on gay rights.
Sure, it’s good that GLAAD changed it’s mind. But it’s shocking and sad that they only did so when it was practically a choice between folding or changing their opinion.
Jeffree
@Cam: +1! You captured the situation just right. Thanks. GLAAD & HRC are out of touch with those of us middle class working grunts, & people outside D.C.
@Daniel V.: The concept of “net neutrality,” I believe, would be worth explaining in further detail, in an article of its own. I don’t think most people are clear yet on what it means & what’s at stake.
jeff4justice
@Cam: Yep. Why would they have an incentive to pass marriage equality when they make 6 figures every year?
Shannon1981
The only thing that GLAAD is good for these days is making outsiders aware of our community. How they ever supported this merger in the first place is beyond me, and it makes me not trust them. The only reason they reversed is because of the firestorm. Also, all t hese resignations- the organization is crumbling.