When it comes to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, we’re torn between a rock and a gay place. On one hand, we’re seeing signs that GLAAD might be turning a corner in its strategy on how to deal with offensive media. On the other hand, it appears the organization might be playing the same ineffective, and sometimes harmful games it always does. Can you help us figure out whether GLAAD is on the path to becoming … relevant?
This week we contacted GLAAD’s Jarrett Barrios to ask them why we hadn’t heard a peep out of them over a The Onion article that used the word “faggot” dozens of times as a derogatory word used to describe something other than gay people — when just last month GLAAD got all upset with South Park for doing the exact same thing. GLAAD’s public relations chief Rich Ferraro, who is well liked inside the organization, explained in an email (asterisks his):
Words like “f*g” and “fa**ot” promote hate and reinforce historical injuries to the LGBT community. They are often the last words people hear before they are beaten or attacked. For this reason, GLAAD has always opposed their use in all contexts.
In truth, this absolute position paints the portrait of gay America with too broad a brush. While it may typically be the case that such words are intended to hurt, some recent instances of satire — like the recent episode of South Park — have evidenced an intent to ridicule the proponents of homophobia and, thus, are not cut from the same cloth. While the repeated use of the word fa**ot in the Onion piece was concerning, we recognize the history of support from the paper and understand the satirical point of the article.
That is perhaps the most nuanced approach to anti-gay language we’ve heard from the organization of late. Of course GLAAD, like GLSEN, doesn’t like slurs being used, but finally it appears to understand that sometimes slurs can be used in a constructive way — to point out how ridiculous certain language and homophobia are.
As Ferraro pointed out in his email, GLAAD expressed a similar sentiment after its South Park attack. Here, the org actually admitted it was wrong, and reversed its attack on the Comedy Central show:
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.
However, we’ve listened to all of the responses in support of South Park and we believe, upon reflection, that those who have encouraged us to see more in this episode than typical satire are right. The show’s writers were trying to get people to think deeper about this subject.
What this show has done is provoke debate and that’s a good thing. At the end of the day, what many of us here at GLAAD believe is that this word will still be used as hate speech, but we can respect the intention of the writers. The episode ends but the discussion goes on for the many who live with an epithet that taunts them daily and creates a climate of fear and intimidation.
Moving forward, if GLAAD is to go after these instances of gay slurs in the media, they should highlight both sides: Gay slurs are hurtful, but sometimes, when used appropriately and with inclusive humor, they can send a worthwhile message that might otherwise not reach certain audiences. (Evidently, they still think Bruno is bad all around.)
Why, then, are we still so frustrated with GLAAD? Because while the organization’s Jesus moment — realizing not everything that’s anti-gay on the surface is actually anti-gay — is commendable, we fear GLAAD remains an ineffective watchdog.
The best, and most recent example is Barrios’s handling of the Adam Lambert saga with ABC. Queerty has eviscerated Barrios and GLAAD (repeatedly) for such gross missteps. And while Barrios has publicly acknowledged GLAAD didn’t do its best work with the Lambert situation, there doesn’t appear to be any sign that GLAAD will become the badass, ambitious, results-delivering organization its financial supporters (and the gay community) deserve.
But that begs a bigger question: What sort of results do we expect GLAAD to be able to deliver? When a radio host compares gays to child molesters, GLAAD issues a press release with the word “condemn” in it. When a Colorado state senator called homosexuality “a violation of this natural creative order,” GLAAD “urged media” to highlight his homohpobia. Great. But a one-man blog could do all of that with much less overhead. (The one-man blog Joe My God regularly does this, to often more impressive results than GLAAD’s team of operators.)
What would make GLAAD exponentially more effective, then, is to put some weight behind its “condemnations.” If GLAAD didn’t manage to get the radio station KRXQ to run a segment on transgender issues (after two hosts made fun of transgender children), well, what would they have done? Issued another press release? Demanded an apology? Big deal.
GLAAD’s power is in mobilizing. And that’s what needs the most exploitation. Its network of supporters, and its ability to reach cable news producers, are the org’s greatest assets. And it’s with those assets GLAAD can start issuing ultimatums. As in: Apologize and never do it again, or we will have your advertiser support removed. Or: Make a donation to a homeless LGBT center to show you really support the gay community, or we will have our members register complaints with your industry trade groups and stop buying your products and start tweeting their friends to go elsewhere as well. And: If you don’t institute a policy barring homophobia, we will go on every cable network that will have us to denounce your organization, over and over and over, until you do so.
But none of that will happen any time soon, because GLAAD’s methodology is cautious engagement and dialogue. We know this, because Barrios just said so. This works, and should be used, to a point. But sometimes, issuing a press release and joint statement isn’t enough. We learned that with GLAAD’s handling of ABC re: Adam Lambert. Aside from some homos lighting up their phone lines, ABC has little reason to reverse course on its anti-Lambert decisions. (It is not, after all, losing advertisers by being anti-gay; the entire reason it’s banned live Lambert appearances is to protect its advertiser relationships.)
And that’s because GLAAD isn’t applying any real pressure.
It makes for great copy to tear GLAAD a new one on this website. But it’s exhausting. And while venting helps us, and asking difficult questions of our gay leaders is worthwhile, it might not be doing much to make GLAAD a more effective organization.
Perhaps that’s because we’re using GLAAD’s own criticizing techniques in criticizing GLAAD: Pointing out where they went wrong, telling them what they can do to make things better (namely: shut up), but neglecting to apply the sort of pressure that makes them listen — like threatening to yank financial support. Given that we don’t write checks to GLAAD, nor do we feel entirely comfortable putting out calls to corporate sponsors to stop supporting a gay organization, we might remain doing the same thing over and over.
But the difference between our version of rinse-and-repeat and GLAAD’s, then, is that we haven’t given ourselves the grand mission of policing the media on behalf of the LGBT community; GLAAD solicits financial contributions to do just that. And so far, it’s doing a mediocre, if not terrible job.
AndrewW
With are very efficient LGBT-Blogosphere we no longer need GLAAD. Many Bloggers are way ahead of GLAAD policing homophobic behavior. Plus, GLAAD has too many “media partners,” to be objective.
For $20 million a year, GLAAD is no longer relevant.
Mark
Punchline.
Dave Farber
The idea that gay blogs can take over the job of GLAAD is laughable.
Honestly, thank god the editorial board of Queerty is not running our largest Gay Media watchdog because they would probably run it head long into the ground. GLAAD can’t act like a bull in a china shop, issuing ultimatums and threatening news outlets, reporters, and networks every time a homophobic piece is released to the media. That would be called burning bridges.
Now We are all aware that at Queerty, burning bridges has become somewhat of a salacious past-time for the editors, but the Adults at GLAAD don’t have the luxury to scream in outrage every time something like Adam Lambert’s ridiculousness occurs. They have relationships with network heads and media moguls to worry about. How do you think gay and lesbian plot lines get included in TV shows? How do you think the many positive portrayals of gay and lesbian characters as of late have come about? It’s because of GLAAD.
AND let’s not forget GLAAD isn’t just a watchdog, they also do media trainings and messaging for countless numbers of LGBT advocacy groups across the nation.
For these reasons GLAAD is a highly laudable organization which gets dragged unduly through the mud on this blog.
GLAAD stands out amongst Gay Inc.’s organizations as one that continuously achieves results in it’s mission of an accepting and inclusive news media for LGBT folk around the country.
TommyOC
@AndrewW:
Spot-on, pal. There will always be room for lobbying organizations out there – they have to exist, hopefully in a more competent form – but the role of an organization to call anti-homosexual shenanigans and rally the troops has transitioned to a grassroots effort. Online bloggers and pundits have shown themselves much more capable and resourceful in spreading the message and effecting change.
Large corporations want orgs like GLAAD to stick around because the gold star bestowed upon them every year helps them claim their bona fides. They can hide behind their false accolades whenever *true* activists come knocking and that has to stop. And the best way to do that is to make such organizations irrelevant.
Being a realist, though, I understand that everything is cyclical. Even with GLAAD out of the way, some grassroots org will eventually grow and take GLAAD’s place as the lumbering, out-of-touch “rights” organization. And at that time, that new org will itself have to be made extinct.
But for the periods of transition, the pressure on those who perpetuate inequality will intensify. And that makes the cycle – and the cynicism that accompanies it – totally worth it.
talaylee
I can’t even take the time to read about these people anymore. Definitely over it. Only self obsessed media whores and those that love them respect GLAAD.
Mark
@ Dave Farber:
You didn’t justify the waste of $20 million a year for GLAAD with your glowing endorsement. GLAAD is irrelevant.
You sound more like you are on the payroll of GLAAD. You didn’t mention that GLAAD is one of the lowest rated charities, scoring only 49 out of 100 points (CharityNavigator). They have one of the highest “fundraising expenses” of more than 20%. Barrios makes $350,000 a year and has a $100,000 expense account.
If you want to pimp for GLAAD give us some real reasons to continue wasting millions of dollars. It seems the jury is no longer out – GLAAD is useless.
Mark
** #3 Dave Farber works for GLAAD.
fleabite
Television and the media are great, Dave – but real change occurs in D.C…not Hollywood….Queer as Folk, Ellen, gay soap characters (i’m barfing right now) won’t change laws. Whatever, GLAAD can stay , do what they’ve been doing, but they dont need to be the lead, they’re just make-up artists putting band aids on wounds.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fleabite
You are WRONg. All these shows DID change things AND for the better. So you’re full of shit unless you work in measurment…
@ David Farber
I agree with you and of course you are right but the same thing is happening here with our government in terms of transparency and openess, they are having to design how people no and understand were their money is going.
And like I said to a wannabe MP, it’s your fault. If you’d created a less ‘Top Down’ mechanism, than we wouldn’t have the very people who have always supported you angry.
Sam
Dave Farber said: “How do you think gay and lesbian plot lines get included in TV shows? How do you think the many positive portrayals of gay and lesbian characters as of late have come about? It’s because of GLAAD.”
Ahhhh, gay and lesbian writers and producers, not GLAAD. Look at the history of GLEE – it had nothing to do with GLAAD.
The world (and our media) is changing. Gay is being done with the false “influence” of GLAAD. Maybe GLAAD had a real purpose 28 years ago – when they started, but no longer.
I agree, GLAAD is a waste of millions of dollars. That money could be better spent – perhaps on something we know is effective.
FakeName
No idea whether Dave Farber works for GLAAD or not. Either way, it’s pretty clear he has little knowledge of the history of the fight for fair and inclusive portrayals of LGBT people and issues on American television.
Following Stonewall, queers organized into radical action groups like the Gay Activists Alliance, the Gay Media Task Force and (believe it or not) the National Gay Task Force (which is now the impotent NGLTF). These groups and others, especially GAA, held “zaps” against politicians and public figures who espoused anti-gay rhetoric or advanced anti-gay policies. GAA in particular focused a lot of attention on TV representation. When “Marcus Welby” presented a 1973 episode that portrayed a gay man as diseased, GAA tried to negotiate with ABC to improve the script. ABC refused to make changes and so GAA occupied ABC’s corporate headquarters, generating tremendous publicity. ABC cut some of the more egregious material for syndication.
When ABC started work the next on another “Welby” episode in which a teacher raped his male student, they sent NGTF the script before starting production, because ABC knew that queers were willing to disrupt their show and cost them money. ABC made some changes but not enough, so NGTF and the GMTF in coalition with the AFL-CIO, the national teachers’ union and the American Psychiatric Association, launched a nationwide campaign against ABC. Eleven sponsors pulled their ads and 17 affiliates refused to run the episode. Later that year an NBC “Police Woman” episode that portrayed a trio of killer lesbians was zapped by a lesbian group. ABC pulled the student-rape episode and NBC pulled the killer lesbian episode from its repeat schedule and from their syndication packages. Because they lost money and got massive amounts of bad publicity.
From that point through the 1970s, the networks sent their LGBT-related scripts to one or another of the major organizations for input. Why? Because queers had shown they had the political clout to cost them money and make them look bad.
In 198* an episode of the show “Midnight Caller” portrayed a bisexual man in San Francisco who was deliberately infecting men and women with HIV. ACT UP and two city AIDS groups got NBC to make some minor changes but the script was still atrocious. ACT UP shut down filming in San Francisco. NBC made some further changes and the next year, when the producers did a follow-up AIDS episode, they consulted with the very groups that had demonstrated. Why? Because they had proved that they could cost NBC money and get them national bad press. That was the last documented instance of such disruption against an anti-gay TV program that I could find (although the filming of “Basic Instinct” was similarly disrupted).
Now we do not have any actual activist groups who are willing to do anything other than write the occasional letter or issue the occasional press release, and the mainstream media doesn’t consult with anyone outside the industry about queer representation. Why? Because time and again Gay Inc. has proved to the mainstream media that Gay Inc. has no real power to cost them money or bad press and no stomach for the kind of radical disruptive action that allowed queers to seize such power in the past. As long as what comes out of Gay Inc. is a press release condemning this episode and praising that one along with a handful of statues at an annual rubber chicken dinner, no one in the mainstream media is going to give a damn about making sure that LGBT representation is accurate and actually representational of our places and our roles in society. Let’s see someone from Gay Inc. chain himself to a TV camera in protest, then maybe I’ll be interested in what Gay Inc. has to say. About anything.
Dave Farber
@FakeName
Ah yes, and a synopsis of “Target, Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television” provides us with a great history of LGBT portrayals in the media. Great job. Too bad the book was published in 1989, pity.
As for what’s happening today you are completely off the mark. Your comment: “and the mainstream media doesn’t consult with anyone outside the industry about queer representation. Why? Because time and again Gay Inc. has proved to the mainstream media that Gay Inc. has no real power to cost them money or bad press and no stomach for the kind of radical disruptive action that allowed queers to seize such power in the past.”
This is ridiculous.
Look at the groups that possess the most power and sway in mainstream media and politics and you don’t see radical grassroots organizations that cause disruptive action. You have groups such as the the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the Christian Coalition who are the lobbying powerhouses that get results. Gays can’t dream of matching their effectiveness because we are too splintered and dis-united. The idea that there is some sort of coordinated Gay Inc. working together in unison for gay rights has been utterly exposed by the in-fighting and failure of the Prop 8 campaign in California, The spats between legal groups pressing LGBT cases in Federal Court AND the embarrassing setbacks in Maine, New York, and soon to be New Jersey.
Gay Inc. is a myth. The gay movement is as dis-jointed and ineffective as ever.
And it’s the irrational idealists like you – who believe that causing a scene and chaining yourself to a TV camera is the way to work for equality – that are spoiling the movement for LGBT equality for the rest of us.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Dave Farber
As as fan of both chaining yourself and lobbying…
All the groups you mentioned had to start somewhere and they did..
You need both in my opinion to develop a cohesive model of the different fractions that exist in the gay community…
But it’s hard because you have ethinicty, class, political ideals…
FakeName
Dave Frber sez: “Ah yes, and a synopsis of “Target, Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television” provides us with a great history of LGBT portrayals in the media. Great job. Too bad the book was published in 1989, pity.”
My sources are Stephen Tropiano’s “The Prime Time Closet: A History of Gays and Lesbians on TV” (2002) and the far superior “Alternate Channels: The Uncensored Story of Gay and Lesbian Images on Radio and Television, 1930s to the Present” (2000) by Steven Capsuto. Both unfortunately out of date (but still in print). A more recent book (of which I’ve only read excerpts) is Ron Becker’s “Gay TV and Straight America” (2006).
And I agree with you that the movement is disjointed and splintered and used “Gay Inc.” ironically as I believe is per usual on this site. Whose fault is that? Is it the grassroots people who are out there taking direct action or is the turf-warring chieftains of the so-called national organizations who congratulate themselves on their “access” but can’t get a bill through, not only Congress, but a single Congressional committee? The people on the ground of these battles or the ones with the funding who can’t figure out how to put together an effective TV commercial. You know it’s funny, but every time I’ve worked toward achieving a specific LGBT objective (and admittedly these were small-scale objectives, not on any sort of national scale) my grassroots groups started out negotiating with those in power and when they turned us down we stormed the battlements. And every time we achieved our objective, because the targets knew what we were capable of, disrupting their event, hijacking their issue to reflect the LGBT concern and generating embarrassing publicity. We took power from them and got their respect. Maybe believing that there is a place in the movement for “causing a scene” makes me irrational and an idealist, but considering that in the absence of scene-making we’re not accomplishing JACK SHIT, maybe you and the rest of the polite homosexuals should go sit down in the back of the bus and let the idealists take a crack at it.
John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
@ Fakename
BUT think of this as a business plan.
How did you get your research for example-market research?
Dave Farber
@ FakeName
You write: “Maybe believing that there is a place in the movement for “causing a scene” makes me irrational and an idealist, but considering that in the absence of scene-making we’re not accomplishing JACK SHIT, maybe you and the rest of the polite homosexuals should go sit down in the back of the bus and let the idealists take a crack at it.”
Let’s take your Rosa Parks analogy to its logical conclusion.
In reality Rosa parks was an unwitting pawn in a campaign planned for months and carefully stage-managed by none other than the NAACP. Ed Nixon had planned the ensuing boycott and enlisted considerable support from the surrounding community through his connections with labor unions and managed to strong arm the local black clergy into supporting him.
Let’s look at Brown v. Board of Education – the supreme court case that struck down separate but equal in the U.S. The case was actually an amalgamation of five separate cases all initiated again by the NAACP in an orchestrated campaign that had maximum success because it was spearheaded by a largely united movement.
In the late 60’s and early 70’s the African-American Civil Rights movement became increasingly polarized, disjointed, and split up. The Civil Rights movement was most effective in the late ’50s and early ’60s when the NAACP managed to censor and contain radical upstart groups such as SNCC, SCLC, and CORE from radicalizing the Civil Rights agenda. (Censorship of John Lewis at the March on Washington).
Let’s look to the lessons of successful Civil Rights movements and emulate them, rather than running rough-shod into fantasies that uncoordinated action will produce civil rights.
You can emulate Abbie Hoffman and his guerilla theater all you want. But they didn’t stop Vietnam.
Let’s hope your misguided approaches don’t derail the movement for equality.
thurd
This company, GLAAD, or whatever they are, could never fail, they never had a game plan to begin with. They glide with the wind, where the homophobia takes them. I would say that they secretly hope for the status quo. I would say that for all of GAY INC. This is where the untalented yet highly ambitious gays end up…becoming useless bureaucrats in a gay congress founded on RuPaul austerity.
flehlibity
@Dave Farber
You lack courage, it seems, thus hide in the comfort matrix that is GLAAD BAGS. Just once would you assume there could be a different “NEW” alternative instead of the tried and untrue…Yeah yeah you would say well “where is it?”…It needs money and attention that your org has been sucking on. Heh, org, like Sea Orgs from scientology…You guys are the gay scientologists lol
jason
Why didn’t GLAAD criticize Barbara Walters and The View for censoring the Adam Lambert kiss? GLAAD has failed the relevancy test. It should be disbanded.
alan brickman
Glaad is neccesary..but unfortunately they don’t have a proper direction like lobbying polticians to vote for equal rights…
hephaestion
I never see any gay characters on TV anymore… except on Logo and Bravo (Real Housewives of Atlanta) and Lifetime (Project Runway).
ARE there any gay characters on network television anymore?
Sam
David Farber has not made a case for our spending $20 million a year on GLAAD – and he works there. Incredible.
GLAAD is finished. HRC is next. NGLTF, soon.
Sam
@ Alan Brickman:
“Lobbying politicians?” Are you kidding? We have wasted +$500 million on HRC and their lobbying.
What do we have to show for it? Nothing.
I think we need to do some math and come to the realization that much of Gay Inc. is a waste. We don’t need GLAAD or HRC, we need our neighbors and friends and co-workers.
Johnson City
Good-bye GLAAD.
FakeName
“Let’s hope your misguided approaches don’t derail the movement for equality.”
Oh that’s OK, GLAAD, HRC, NGLTF and the rest of the self-appointed “leadership” ran the freedom train off the tracks long ago.
FakeName
hephaestion asks: “ARE there any gay characters on network television anymore?”
The one useful thing GLAAD actually does, counting queers on TV.
http://www.glaad.org/tvreport
Sam
The one useful thing GLAAD actually does, counting queers on TV.
That’s not worth $20 million a year.
Anything else? We need to justify the millions or kiss them goodbye.
Brian NJ
GLAAD actually listens to the gay community and has an open mind. They are to be commended for this. They are apparently a very different organization from the HRC that does not give a shit what the gay community thinks. They continue to protect the backroom silence deal between Obama and Joe Solomonese, and still refuse to use criticism of Obama to get leverage on our issues.
Pablo
GLAAD does not have anywhere near $20 million to spend -go check their financials, it’s not that hard. Stop making things up.
Sam
Hey Pablo:
GLAAD had $18,700,799 in 2008 GLAAD IRS Form 990. 2009 is estimated at $22 million.
Ahhhh, both of those numbers are “close to $20 million.”
Nobody has justified that kind of waste. GLAAD is irrelevant.
Sam
@ Brian NJ:
GLAAD is just like HRC – ineffective. Both organizations have had 28 years. Maybe they were relevant 20 years ago, but not today.
The LGBT Community has given HRC more than $500 million and GLAAD more than $200 million. What do we have to show for $700 million?
If you want to justify the spending of this money – please provide something real, something that makes a difference for LGBT persons.
Unless we do something, HRC & GLAAD will waste another $75 million in 2010. As a community, are we really that stupid?
Joe
I tend to agree with the assessment that GLAAD is a broken system. I tried several times to get them to take action re: “douchefag” and…nothing. How hard is it to write a little press release?
Jason
I agree with the consensus here – GLAAD has outgrown its usefulness. I think we should consider better uses of the money they collect for our community. I can think of dozens of things that would be more effective than everything GLAAD does.
NotGLAADanymore
Barrios makes $500,000 a year running an organization that really seems out-of-touch and out-of-purpose. Maybe there is a limited role for GLAAD, but paying Barrios a half million dollars is clearly stupid.
Please downsize GLAAD or shut it down.
Jason
GLAAD is one of the worst charities rated:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6743
The get 49 out of 100 points.
High salaries and fundraising expenses – half their money.
Keith Kimmel
Pretty much hit the nail on the head here, Queerty. Take away GLAAD’s reach to cable networks and what it does could be accomplished by a blogger.
They don’t use their muscle at all. And that is because, as was pointed out, they have too many “media partners” funding it. ABC sponsors them, no wonder they don’t want to hit ABC over the head like I do.
WillBFair
I think we need to know if GLAAD gets its money from corporations. Large commercial interests want to maintain the status quo because change upsets their customer base. If GLAAD is funded by them, they will never do anything to cause real change.
But there’s a worse problem than GLAAD. It’s the movement itself.
The community chooses leaders with deep voices and good looks instead of brains, integrity, and emotional maturity. As a people, we’re filled with internalized homophobia, and we engineer failures in order to feel sorry for ourselves. Our strategy is non existent. And we lurch from one useless tactic to another while blaming everything on Barney or Elton or Hillary, or whoever’s in the news this week. Right now it’s GLAAD. But if we were serious about strategy, we wouldn’t settle for corporate funded placebos. We’d finance our own groups, fill them with smart people, and insist that they devise effective strategy.
Totakikay
Its time to go “green” with money. Start saving money and use it for more useful stuff.
H.L.
Blogs can never entirely replace anything because they have no journalistic responsibility for fact checking. Example: GLAAD doesn’t have an annual budget of $20 Million.
delicto
I dont have an extended answer but I wanna say we have to stick together thru thick and thin..its a hard road right now, but im happy glaad is around.
Keith Kimmel
Thats true, Willbefair. You have to wonder why we never hear about the hate crimes that happen to the average, run of the mill homosexuals, that is the ones that aren’t particularly cute and have no celebrity. Its always the cute adorable ones that get all the media attention.
Sam
@ H.L.
GLAAD received $18,700,799.in 2008.
Okay, not quite $20 million. I guess we should have said they only wasted about $19 million.
Sorry.
If you want to suggest GLAAD is useful or effective, please share.
dvd
A recent good example of GLAAD…
I’ve been touched in hearing from the main stream media, including smaller local newscasts, the proper pronouns used in describing transgendered people.
I remember not too long ago, it was usually a “he/she, chuckle,”. Thru the work of GLAAD and their education of the media, a transgendered M2F is called “she”, even if she is only starting the transition. Chaz Bono for example is properly and respectfully called “he”. That wouldn’t have happened without GLAAD.
I’d love for the time when GLAAD is dismantled, because that would mean defamatory comments were absent. But we’re not there yet.
And yes, positive representation on television and pop culture have HUGELY affected middle-America’s comfort level with the gays. You have to change people before you can change laws.
Sam
@ DVD:
You must work for GLAAD, because the outrage has come from the gay media, not GLAAD.
It is very clear from this Post and all the comment – only employees of GLAAD want to keep them in business.
GLAAD is no longer relevant or necessary. Stop, already.
Brian
Most Gay Inc. is run by politicians, and we wonder why we can’t trust them – or that they never actually accomplish anything.
When will we learn?
Swarm
Dear Jarrett:
I’m happy for you and I’mma let you finish but STFU. No more help, dude, I already took care of this tonight on Fox.
kthanksbye,
Adam
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/214/gfhh.gif
TammyK
There is so much disinformation and vitriol in these comments that I’m sick to my stomach. It’s so easy to flame LGBT activists from behind the mask of web anonymity, eh? We really do love to eat our own, don’t we?
GLAAD does not have a $20 million budget. More like $7 million. Barrios does not make $500,000. Less than half of that. GLAAD is an imperfect organization that can be much better. What civil rights organization is perfect? What civil rights organization can’t be made much better? Barrios is new and getting up to speed. I like what I see so far. He’s making tough decisions and adding some edge to the organization. He has the benefit of my doubt.
Brian NYC
@TammyK: GLAAD had $20 million in 2008 and $18 million in 2009. Check the IRS filings.
I don’t care if Barrios made $300,000 or $500,000 in salary and benefits – GLAAD is useless. We don’t NEED them. They should fold.
Brian NYC
Tammy K = GLAAD employee.
TammyK
@Brian NYC: I suggest you get a life, or at least a job. I am not a GLAAD employee. And no I’m not related to one either. I do know that GLAAD’s budget is around $7m, so you have no idea what you’re talking about. And if you don’t like GLAAD then, you know what? Find another organization to donate your time and money to. Why not divert your energy to building up organizations you believe in? Or why don’t you start your own organization? Try to do the kind of work that GLAAD does everyday. See how far your throwing shitbombs through anonymous web posts will get you. Good luck with that. I am finding myself less and less tolerant of know-nothing gays who throw stones at LGBT activists with nothing but bad information, ignorant arguments, and entirely unrealistic expectations. I bet BrianNYC is a closet case to boot. I find that those are the type who are most apt to flameout anonymously online. With friends like these…
Becky911
glaad is a cring shame and embarassment. this is a joke. bring down the HRC AND GLAAD NOW