Kerry Eleveld is one of those reporters you keep hearing about: Talented lesbians scoring big breaks! Sure, Rachel Maddow has her own television show after winning a contest to co-host a morning radio show, but Eleveld went from “the food and beverage business” and selling study guides door-to-door to becoming The Advocate‘s D.C. beat reporter. She’s the one pissing off Robert Gibbs when Jake Tapper and Ana Marie Cox aren’t, so that’s kind of a big deal. Especially when LGBT media is in a tailspin, and a flailing magazine found the cash for her to set up shop in the nation’s capital. The 39-year-old Michigan-to-L.A.-to-South-Carolina-to-San Francisco-to-New-York-to-D.C. transplant has a lot of smart things to say, but given her unique position inside the world of queer media, we’re going to focus in there.
With a master’s in journalism from UC Berkley (a degree that’s essentially worthless these days) Eleveld never expected to find herself the gay media. “I would be lying if I said that I have a long, strong, deep involvement with LGBT media,” she tells Metro Weekly. “That’s really not true. I’ll probably put my job in jeopardy now but I really did not read the LGBT media during the first 15 years that I was out. I just didn’t read them. And now here I am working at one. So I don’t have this long history of growing up with and really wrestling and reading and absorbing LGBT media. At times that works for my benefit and at times it’s a detriment. I don’t necessarily think it’s a good or bad thing, it just is.”
And yet: “My goal as a journalist in my position here is for me to not be necessary.”
Eleveld holds a stance on gay media many folks in the industry share: While trying to avoid being known as “advocacy journalist” (you know, pushing their gay agendas), they want this country to get to a place where the “gay beat” isn’t necessary, because there’s equality for all, and none of these nonsensical court battles and legislative sessions to cover. Says Eleveld: “I do think that within the LGBT community there’s something different about covering politics, per se, and covering culture — I could see a culture magazine continuing to be relevant for many more years. … For whatever reason I think we have many, many more people who really want a report on the culture of the LGBT community. What I’m happy about is that there are enough people tuned in to what needs to happen politically right now that it makes my position possible and, at least in the short term, sustainable.”
But — with any luck — that won’t remain forever. Reportage about the gay civil rights struggle will be relegated to text books and museums, not the cable news cycle. And yet: We aren’t quite there. The reporting on LGBT issues, particularly when done by gay people like Eleveld — and Gay City News‘ Duncan Osborne, the Associated Press’ Lisa Leff, LA Weekly‘s Patrick Range McDonald, and not to mention bloggers like Pam Spaulding, Andy Towle, Bil Browning, Michael Petrelis, and, dare we say, our own staff — remains not just important, but crucial.
Which makes us all the more sad when we learned this month that LOGO, the MTV cousin network that’s supposed to be programming for our community, pulled the plug on its half-hour weekly news broadcast.
j
Very well written article, queerty.
Two thumbs up!
Marc
Logo sucks! They cancelled the only decent program on the channel!!
Charles Merrill
Kerry is very smart talented and full of self confidence. So far, she is the only one that landed an interview with Obama. She will do well even if the Advocate folds. The New York Times is in trouble. All print media, especially Conde Nast. No advertising revenue. The Daily Beast proves there is a market for talented writers. I am glad you mentioned Petrelis. I think he is hilarious just don’t get on his shit list.
Ohomo
I really loved the program, too. I doubt Logo cancelled it — I would wager the news division at CBS did. As for gay news, while I am certainly no fan of the “have my assistant call your assistant” pretentious and from what I hear, not so pleasant culture of the parent company, Out & Advocate have been by and large very readable now for a few years. I worry about their finances, because the costs of putting together a magazine are high and ad revenue these days is about as plentiful as fresh water in the high desert. Good for them though supporting a dedicated reporter in DC. We need as many eyes looking at what’s happening there as possible.
Toby
@Ohomo:
Nope. It was Logo’s choice and not CBS’s. I have a friend that works at Logo and they couldn’t afford the budget anymore so they cut it. I guess if you can’t repeat a show a thousand times like the rest of Logo’s programming it doesn’t make sense to keep it from a financial standpoint.
Lloyd Baltazar
No money, no show.
You can whine about it—-for many valid reasons but the bottom line is….
NO MONEY, NO SHOW.
Ohomo
Lloyd & Toby, a question for you. Considering what I would assume to be the demographics of an audience for a show like that, why would it go when something like Charlie Rose wouldn’t? Could they stay in business if they resold it as a cable offering? Just curious. My sense is the financial underpinnings of a Logo (Viacom is it?) are not exactly teensy weensy. Were the viewers just that few?
Toby
@Ohomo:
Viacom isn’t going to give money to a network that doesn’t make money for them. MTV, VH1, Comedy Central fall under the Viacom umbrella and due to their success they get a large sum of funding. smaller channels such as Logo, The N, VH1 Classic, etc. don’t get as much from the parent company.
What I don’t understand is why would Logo cut CBS News on Logo, yet I read on here several months back that they were giving dollars to the Sarah Silverman’s show to share with Comedy Central. Makes more sense to have gay news than a comedy show we can see on another network that isn’t even gay. I wager that Logo is trying to stray from their core gays and go broader and be more like Bravo.
Ohomo
Interesting. Well they will have a long way to go there, because even their gayest programming has been largely less interesting to gays than Bravo’s semi-gay programming, imo. A great program is a great program is a great program. Bravo has the juice. Logo has the lemons. Which is too bad. I remember how excited all my gay friends across America were when they 1st got Logo on their cable. They just left it on while they puttered around. I doubt they leave it on these days, which is too bad. It all boils down to pivotal people. Bravo has them (or did), and I wonder if Logo ever did. My sense is not.
corset
@Toby:
CBS, in turn, owns Viacom.
Ohomo
Watching 60 Minutes tonight, one has to wonder, are there any Don Hewitt’s in charge of gay media? Not. We would be LUCKY if we could claim Bozo the Clown at this point.
naprem
I worked with Kerry briefly, and I found her very intelligent and respectable. Good strong lady, happy to have her.
Rick
WE LOVE NEWSBIANS!
Joanaroo
It’s sad Logo dropped the news program-if you want the gay perspective where better than a gay network? The only other shows with a gay news/info theme are PBS’s “In The Life” and MIND’s “Gay USA”. Sometimes MIND’s “Democracy Now” with Amy Goodman covers gay issues.
Joanaroo
I watch Logo but have noticed too that it’s becoming more like MTV. The films they show are repeated so often. I do like the travel shows, “Real Momentum”, “Beautiful People” and specials, but even those are repeated often.