Brian Williams made a gay peace offering yesterday. And no everyone’s taking it…
The NBC newsman caused a stink two nights ago when he used the phrase “marriage is under attack,” a well known right-wing rhetoric brandished against gay marriage. The gay blogs, including ourselves, immediately began questioning whether Williams intended to spread such vile ideology or had found himself at the mercy of uncreative writers. Knowing the immense power of the gay, Williams released a statement clarifying his queer choice of words:
I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people, telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night’s broadcast. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment, especially in this era when, as I put it, marriage seems “under attack” as an institution. My meaning? Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been further from my mind, as many others easily understood.
In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, “It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack — by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement.”
Ah, way to pull out that homo-journo friend! While we appreciate Williams’ explanation, it still seems a bit dodgy. We won’t question his thinking, but “marriage is under attack” doesn’t usually coincide with divorce data.
Jeremy Hooper of Good As You, who broke the story, may be willing to forgive Williams’ televised slip-up, but he takes issue with some of the journalist’s words:
…We do take exception with his phrasing, saying he was “being attacked in parts of the blogosphere” for the comments. This site was the very first one to post and comment on the video, and we did not “attack” — we pointed out that the phrase is hostile terminology employed by the far right, and that such probably should not be used in a mainstream news broadcast. And we didn’t take it upon ourselves to assume that he was “somehow attacking gay marriage” — we used the information that was given to ask what, exactly, he meant.
It’s very easy to attack the blogosphere as angry folks who are quick to judge. However, we take offense to that characterization, especially when talking about a situation that we still think should’ve been worded very differently.
Williams’ reaction, says Hooper, implies that we bloggers were acting “irrationally” and had created a scandal out of nothing. We agree with Hooper on this point. We’re assuming Williams, whose wedding ring can be seen quite clearly in the picture above, does not.
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.
Meanwhile, it wouldn’t be a gay media scandal without a few words from GLAAD’s president, Neil Giuliano:
Dear Mr. Williams,
Thank you for acknowledging the concerns raised by GLAAD and a number of
online journalists today regarding your comments on yesterday’s broadcast
about marriage being “under attack.”Your blog entry today confirms that your use of the phrase on last night’s
broadcast was not in any way intended to disparage gay couples, and that
expression is appreciated. However, the primary issue is whether a phrase
that has been used predominantly in an ugly anti-gay context can be used in
another, tangentially related context (here, marriage in a general sense)
without invoking the stereotypes that imbrue its common usage.The phrase ”marriage under attack” — like “defense of marriage,” which you
use elsewhere in your blog entry — is a meme designed and used by far-right
anti-gay activists to scare people into opposing legal protections for gay
couples. Media professionals who talk about marriage-related issues in
their reporting should simply and factually discuss them, rather than
uncritically repeating rhetoric calculated to make people feel threatened by
and afraid of loving, committed couples.GLAAD’s work is rooted in the fundamental understanding that words and
images matter. We expect that future NBC News reporting on marriage — both
generally and for gay couples specifically — avoids these kinds of
linguistic pitfalls.Regards,
Neil G. Giuliano
We may not always be on the same page as Neil, but his marriage meme theories ring true. Pun totally intended.
[Image]
spunkbox
I think he is totally full of it (and himself). Lets wait for outside NBC and fuck his ass nice and bloody in front of the throngs of zombie tourists. He’s sleazy, but he is cute.
spunkbox
I think he is totally full of it (and himself). Lets wait for him outside NBC and fuck his ass nice and bloody in front of the throngs of zombie tourists. He’s sleazy, but he is cute.
Ryan
The title of this blog’s original post on the matter was “Brian Williams suffers wicked, right-wing slip?”. Adding a question mark to the end of what is obviously an attack doesn’t lend it any journalistic credibility.
Matt
I don’t know. Yes, the phrase is totally loaded with rightwing baggage, but it’s possible, just possible, that gay marriage is not the number one issue on the minds of everyone in the world. I don’t know Brian Williams, I don’t watch network television news, so I’m totally talking without any basis here, but we should consider the possibility that the phrase was stuck in his brain (from the gay-marriage debates) but used outside of its normal context, because it sounded good and dramatic. Or of course, he may be a rightwing fundie sleazoid in cute clothing.
Jordan
Why not, “At a time when divorce rates are at an all-time high?” That seems to get the point across pretty plainly and succinctly. The introduction of the phrase “under attack” only brings the fight over gay marriage to mind. I’d like to think that marriage equality IS on the minds of everyone in the world. And using language like Williams did only lends credibility to those on the wrong side.
hells kitchen guy
Judging from the comments on this blog, I’d say he was attacked. I think he handled it with more grace and diplomacy than the whole stupid episode deserves.
Leland Frances
Williams is serving flaming hogshit for Thanksgiving dinner. Even IF he was not totally or was only partially referring to the fight for marriage equality, as stated above, “marriage under attack” is but a variation of a propaganda phrase manufactured by the Antigay Industry and THAT’s what most viewers would have “heard,” however subconsciously.
The proof, to me, in his hogshit pudding is the grammatical absurdity of even claiming marriage is under attack because of the divorce rate. No one ever talks of friendship being under attack because friends have arguments and stop talking to each other. The displacement by cRap of virtually all other kinds of CD sales save for Country Western didn’t result in people saying, “Classical/pop/jazz/rock music is under attack.” The rapid rise in popularity in US public schools of soccer doesn’t have ESPN declaring that baseball is under attack. As Matt Damon became a megastar while most people stopped going to films by his friend and former, however briefly, showbiz equal Ben Affleck you didn’t hear “Variety” proclaiming, “Affleck Attack!” Etc., etc.
He’s guilty of limited intelligence if nothing else. Further, IS the divorce rate, in fact, “at an all time high”? The saw used to be “one out of two end in divorce.” If the rate is, as he acknowledges, possibly as low as 40% then he should have said, “‘Attacks on marriage are going down’.”
But given the quote about Limbaugh I believe he’s guilty of a lot worse. Following his death, I was stunned to discover that one of the best friends of the much-mourned ABC anchor Peter Jennings [who I had thought was nothing like that] was Supreme Court Chief Fascist Scalia.
There’s more behind all those well-groomed appearances, expensive suits, and smiling faces of TV’s talking heads than always meets the eye or our willingness to disbelieve.
GLAAD does little anymore to earn their keep, but they, and Jeremy at Good As You, were right on!
Gregg
Williams is an ass. Neil Giuliano’s letter sums the issue up beautifully.
The point isn’t what Williams MEANT. The point is that he used a phrase lifted from right wing talking points about gay marriage. He is not a stupid man, and there is no way he is naive enough to not know that words and phrases carry baggage.
Poor thing felt attacked? Try living as a gay person in this society.
mister
I don’t really understand this. Why is everyone taking this out of proportion? Is there nothing better to do with our time than to create a so called “Media Gaffe”? Marriage IS under attack in more ways than one. The divorce rate IS at 50%, families ARE falling apart and this doesn’t necessarily have to do with the heterosexual relationship. We as homosexuals want to make something out of this situation because we feel excluded but, in reality it turns out we are no better than anyone else. Just because we can’t say we are “Married” doesn’t mean that we have perfect relationships or that every gay couple stays together. Quit trying to stigmatize relationships as marriage. Try to create rights that are inclusive regardless of the wordage. As a product of divorce myself I see no reason to create such a stink about one word or contractual agreement. People should concentrate on the bond between each other and not what that bond is called.
ProfessorVP
Something can’t attack itself from within. You can dissolve your marriage but you can’t attack it. A high divorce rate (and it’s been about 50% for many years, nothing new) doesn’t equal marriage being attacked. For an attack on the institution of marriage to occur, it has to come from outside, or more accurately, those kept outside. There’s no question what Williams really meant.
Gregg
Divorce is not an “attack”. Divorce is legal and has been for a very long time.
thatguyfromboston
I think if done with just the right amount of malice and bitterness divorce could be an attack.
David Hauslaib, Queerty
I have a hard time believing Brian Williams actually sides with the right-wing anti-gay marriage proponents on this. I doubt he’d ever pull the “I have so many gay friends” card, but homophobe he is not. (And, even if, unrealistically, he were, the man is smart enough to know not to air those feelings on an evening newscast.)
His explanation is satisfactory.
Gregg
Homophobic or not, Williams still denies the weight of the phrase, and therefore his explanation is NOT satisfactory.
hells kitchen guy
David/Queerty,
Thanks for that. But if you believe that, why did you post this in suc a leading way? Oh, yeah, it’s that snarky Internet style. You kids!
What really surprises is that, on a gay blog, no one’s mentioned how terrible his makeup is. He always looks as though he just out of a tanning booth w/tons of that orange retanning shit slathered on him.
David Hauslaib, Queerty
@14/Gregg: Valid point.
@15/hells kitchen guy: Andrew, Queerty’s editor, wrote the post. I don’t always agree with him 🙂
alan brickman
“Attack of marriage” is a phrase “right wingers” usually say and it is pretty much is when “gay marriage” is mentioned. what an arrogant flake…
jack jett
I am far more concerned with Tim Russert, Tucker Carlson, Howard Kurtz and Lou Dobbs venom is spewed on a regular basis.
Jack Jett
ProfessorVP
Boston, a divorce can be bitter and mean-spirited, and the two spouses can attack each other. But the marriage isn’t attacked. Williams wasn’t referring to any particular marriage; he was speaking of the institution of marriage under attack. And whenever that is said, there’s no question about whom the speaker means.
JP
“Black Cloud”
johnosahon
FUNNY STUFF I SENT TO BRAIN
******************************************
so brian is a “dumb blond”, “man with pretty face and hair” because i don’t understand why in God’s name, he does not know that “marriage under attack” = “gays are attacking marriage”. heck i probably learnt it from watching all the news segment on your show. what the heck where you doing when your team was reporting, staightening out your hair? thinking of what to wear tommorrow?
by the way for future notice “dumb blonde”,
“LIFESTYLE” = “gays” in right-wing talk, just warning you, that’s if you can actually read.