Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  hacktivism

GLAAD’s Jarrett Barrios Will Never Get the Adam Lambert Saga Right

After initially refusing press interviews following GLAAD’s absolute fuck-up with the Adam Lambert/AMA fiasco, the organization’s chief Jarrett Barrios, who’s been on the job three months, agreed to own up for his failures. Well, sort of.

Sitting down with OutQ’s Michelangelo Signorile, Barrios makes what’s arguably a fourth attempt at clarifying where GLAAD stands. And it’s this: There’s a double standard with gay male entertainers, and that’s, like, not good and stuff.

We’ve already asked Barrios to STFU on Lambert, because of the way he initially sided with ABC — and basically apologized for criticism of the network — in a joint release.

As Barrios explains GLAAD’s (ineffective) methodology, the org complains, then waits for the offending party (i.e. ABC) to make a statement, and then GLAAD happily distributes that statement. That’s, uh, “activism.”

“This is a very problematic statement,” admits Barrios of GLAAD’s original release. “We released a clarifying statement the next day. … All during this time, we’re still talking to ABC, and we were very pleased with the partial victory the next day.”

But, uh, what victory? Lambert was still nixed from Jimmy Kimmel and New Year’s Rockin’ Eve. He’ll get an appearance on The View and Barbara Walters’s 10 Most Fascinating People of 2009; both are taped. That’s the “partial” factor.

“What I can talk about is whether the gay entertainers are being treated differently than the straight entertainers,” says Barrios. “That’s my job.” He is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! And while he maintains ABC is perpetrating a double standard (it is), Barrios BOMBED on his very job description, as he put on kid gloves with ABC, and still refuses to make any real demands of the network.

And as for Lambert now being allowed on ABC in limited terms? Barrios says GLAAD had nothing to do with that! “No no no,” says Barrios, answering a question whether he talked to ABC execs to get Lambert back on certain shows. So, uh, GLAAD didn’t even have a hand in the partial victory?

Ridiculous.

So allow us to repeat our previous request: Jarrett Barrios, sit down. This is no longer your fight. And you’re co-opting it with disastrous results. Your intentions are commendable. GLAAD does some good things, despite almost always being late to the game. And we appreciate you admitting you were at fault. But given the opportunity to lead the charge on the most visible anti-gay move by a major media network during your short tenure, you blew it. Better luck next time.

Below, Lambert demonstrates what he’d like to do with GLAAD’s face:

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 9, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,

  • 30 Comments
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      Please remind us why we waste millions on GLAAD. After nearly 30 years and more than $200 million – what has GLAAD accomplished?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Ugh, please tell me this guy isn’t getting paid a large salary to fuck up like this.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Meowzer
      Meowzer

      If GLAAD is supposedly working for us… doesn’t that mean we’re his boss? Can’t we just fire this fuck up before he sets us back 100 years? I mean, really!

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JLM
      JLM

      GLAAD are idiots! Especially Barrios. Can’t he be replaced??

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      It’s disheartening isn’t it when they’re this handsome AND ineffectual…? :(
      We can’t afford both this and Obama’s inertia at the same time.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scottie
      Scottie

      God, if only Adam Lambert would have had a half-way decent performance, we wouldn’t have this problem! Where’s Elton when you need him.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      When is somebody going to mention the obvious conflict of interest here? ABC sponsors GLAAD! Of course the kid gloves went on. Fuck ABC and fuck GLAAD. Both of them are as worthless as tits on a boar.

      Join the 824 people telling ABC to shove it up their ass.

      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=184007987035

      Dec 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      GLAAD hasn’t filed their IRS forms yet, but indications are that Barrios earns +$300,000 per year. Although, nobody seems to know why? Joe Solmonese (HRC) received $338,400 in salary and a +$100,000 expense account. Again, nobody seems to know why?

      HRC has received $513 million in 28 years. They have nothing to show for it. Well, the cruising-stickers for our cars.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 2:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 3 – Meowser

      Someone once said “A bureaucracy once created, continues to exist for it’s own celebration even after the need for it has passed.”

      And like the government, these organizations, churches, et al, supported with our dollars, blithely ignore the fact that they are, indeed, working for us and pay little or no mind to those who are foolish enough to continue giving them their hard-earned money.

      As long as we enable them, they will continue to fuck us over. Putting them out of business is really very simple.

      Just keep your wallet in your pocket when they come around looking for a handout.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 8 – Andrew

      GLAAD hasn’t filed their IRS forms yet, but indications are that Barrios earns +$300,000 per year. Although, nobody seems to know why? Joe Solmonese (HRC) received $338,400 in salary and a +$100,000 expense account. Again, nobody seems to know why?,

      Well, the old, tired and time-worn answer is “Salaries in that range need to be offered in order to attract the qualified personnel those positions demand.”

      Hmm….seems like that idea is not working very well, is it?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      “GLAAD I didn’t hire Jarret”

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      COMPOUND your mistake Jarret re-sponsor Queer Lounge at SUNDANCE in UTAH

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      Very true Schlukitz.

      It seems our community just can’t break bad habits. If 28 years, $513 million and NO results isn’t enough evidence – we are screwed.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Freddie
      Freddie

      The term debated in another post fits GLAAD and Barrios: DoucheFags!

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Swarm
      Swarm

      STFU indeed. This guy is used to his Marshmallow Fluff offensive. wtf.

      The 2008 990 Schedule J shows all the salaries. Neil Giuliano drew 271,000 and Julie Anderson 201,000 in compensation.

      MORE INTERESTING IS THE BOARD. Over 30 people.

      They need to be researched AS TO THEIR REAL LIFE JOBS. Someone here said they heard GLADD’s board included network tv people.

      Contrast PETA- revenue is four times GLAAD’s and they have FOUR board members.

      The President/Founder drew $35,00 and VP drew $70,000. Yes, this is an anomaly since it’s the lowly animal rights people that have no status whatsoever.

      GLAAD’S executives are into the glam. (not the Glambert :))

      My feeling is that board of 30 creates ineffective chaos. Whoever they are…

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Swarm
      Swarm

      #10 “Well, the old, tired and time-worn answer is “Salaries in that range need to be offered in order to attract the qualified personnel those positions demand.”

      This is a fair argument if there isn’t anyone with passion and a track record to step forward.

      However, GLAAD is legally required as a 501C3 to file “Program Service ACCOMPLISHMENTS” with their returns.

      They have two generic paragraphs. I laid it out somewhere else here…

      What I get from their website (in the hour that I looked at it. was they think monitoring the media is their job. And giving out scorecards and awards. Wut?

      I stipulate they have resource conflicts, ok. But don’t over commit then.

      Here’s where you money goes:

      http://www.glaad.org/mediaawards

      The lapdog watchdog. No offense to canines.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      CharityNavigator.com ranks GLAAD as one of the worst “advocacy charities” with a score of only 49.19 and less than two-out-of-four-stars.

      They have very high “fund-raising” expense of more than 20% (average is 10%). Donations have gone down for 3 years in a row, while expenses have gone up.

      Nobody has been able to justify their existence.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • celtcwrtr
      celtcwrtr

      umm… this may perhaps be a bit off-topic, (but) wasn’t the network’s response due to the legal complaint filed by the minions of the moral minority who have now devolved into the liberty police?

      http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/ltr_fcc_complaint_obscenity_112409.pdf

      am i mistaken in interpreting this as an act to change standards and invoke their agenda of repressive censorship against the general viewing public?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Swarm
      Swarm

      #18 @CELTCWRTR No you’re right and it is the ACTUAL topic :)… because the Complaint used “homosexual” in each citation it was the perfect open door for GLAAD. Especially “open mouth homosexual kissing” LOL I mean you feel ridiculous even typing that one.

      One may argue that the CST safe harbor time zone was broken or “community standards” were obscene even, but there’s no defense for the wording of “homosexual”. GLAAD was clearly avoiding the entire thing and thought they could rely on typical apathy.

      If they had simply made a lame statement ok, but to SIDE with ABC knowing the complaint language makes them very very pathetic and suspicious.imo

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RomanHans
      RomanHans

      Don’t blame the entire gay community for the existence of GLAAD. I went to one of their recent fundraisers, and it was obvious: they pay their employees very little — if anything — but reward them with parties that have free food and drink (provided free by sponsors hoping to reach a gay audience, of course). And at these parties they kiss up to rich gay people and hope to separate them from their money.

      At the fundraiser I went to, there were faaar more GLAAD employees and people who got free tickets because they were affiliated with sponsors than actual ticket-buying gays. So, in a lot of ways, it seems like a giant scam.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RandomMedley
      RandomMedley

      For Barrios’ information “Adam’s fans” are not happy that Adam’s shows are pre-recorded. This is not a good thing. Everything Adam has been invited to do has been scrutinized and man has been whipped from every direction. He did nothing wrong. If anyone took the time to view the rehearsal footage it was pretty close to the performance.

      The repercussions for Adam and all performers is huge. If Disney has their way and makes performers sign contracts that limits their creativity,have Barrios tell me who wins with lackluster/rote and uninspired art. Not to mention that fellow performers with blame Adam for the new restrictions and penalties.

      This guy has thrown Adam under the bus, takes responsibility for it and then changes the subject. Granted, in the larger picture, the Rick Warren issue is far more critical. But with friends like Barrios who needs enemies.

      By the way Adam was just canceled from the Larry King show. What next?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      So now Queerty blames Barrios.

      Queerty the ‘lobby’ group that insulted Adam for so long and called his performance PATHETIC but are now, pro this?

      Who is better ‘commenters’???

      Queerty, the most hypocrital and two faced business that makes moeny form YOU clicking ON their site or GLAAD with a president who actually was the ONLY reason anyone in Boston can marry, plus he at least says he’s married with kids??

      Guys, you need help.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • VirginiaHam
      VirginiaHam

      @John

      We all have two faces, sometimes more, that isn’t the point. We need those faces -facing- one direction if we’re to advance. That’s it.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 22 ยท John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s) said…
      So now Queerty blames Barrios.

      Queerty the ‘lobby’ group that insulted Adam for so long and called his performance PATHETIC but are now, pro this?

      Who is better ‘commenters’???

      Queerty, the most hypocrital and two faced business that makes moeny form YOU clicking ON their site or GLAAD with a president who actually was the ONLY reason anyone in Boston can marry, plus he at least says he’s married with kids??

      Guys, you need help.
      ____________________________________

      Hi John,

      Queerty was going after GLAAD’s letting ABC off the hook in this instance not on their not defending Lambert.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Good for him to admit it….how many others wouldn”t?….

      Dec 9, 2009 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bianca
      Bianca

      Here is what the legendary Steven Spielberg had to say about Adam tonight – http://twitter.com/glaminatrix

      Dec 10, 2009 at 1:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      Scottie, why does your response strike me as homophobic?

      Dec 10, 2009 at 7:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terie
      terie

      I for one as a loyal ADAM LAMBERT fan am not ready to let ABC off the hook. Two pre-taped programs one of which did not showcase ADAM singing and both which kept dredging up the AMA’s which (non)issue I have already put in the past (I was THOROUGHLY “ENTERTAINED”) and not offended … why should I be … I have a remote if I was …. does not SATISFY me in the least! Until ADAM is rescheduled on the ABC programs and given the recognition he deserves from ABC I will not watch the programs on that network again. It is permanently OFF the AIR as far as I am concerned!!! If all of ADAM’s supporters did the same ABC would SING a different tune. ABC had the opportunity to nix the performance during rehearsals since MOST of it was what the audience saw with a few exceptions. They could have told him to pick another song … the HYPOCRITES!!!

      Dec 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      We are over GLAAD. They are no longer necessary or even useful.

      Stop donating. GLAAD is finished.

      Dec 14, 2009 at 12:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ossurworld
      ossurworld

      Barrett was trained in competence during his years in the Massachusetts State Legislature. Enough said?

      Dec 14, 2009 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.