A very early, very different, rough first-draft (unintended for anyone's eyes) was accidentally posted by the HuffingtonPost. This happened for a few minutes on Nov. 2. The official posting of Ms. Wieder's article has always been dated 11/04/2009.
In case you haven't read the "official stories" or the gossip, Regent Media, the latest owner of The Advocate--once the national LGBT newsmagazine of record for America (41-years-old exactly!)--is reducing the publication to a 32-page mini-mag, taking it off the newsstands, and packaging it up with its "sister" publication, Out magazine. Subscribers will get a magazine they never wanted (Out) and, of course, the still-free website.
What the hell happened? What colossal cluster of f-ups managed to devastate a magazine that was so important even ten years ago that every serious news media in the world turned to it for back up sourcing when covering gay issues? A magazine that was such a desirable icon in the community, it gave its then owners, LPI Media, the resources to buy/rescue its nearly bankrupt rival, Out. A magazine that not only reported on, analyzed, and clarified the nonstop information that sites like its own advocate.com coughed up relentlessly, but actually made news. Breaking news that appeared in the magazine became news that other media chased.
In its glory days, The Advocate, was the only gay media to score the first in-depth interviews with politicians, gay and straight: Barney Frank, Al Gore, Steve Gunderson, John Kerry, Gerry Studds, Barry Goldwater, Rudolph Guilianni, Hillary and Bill Clinton, David Duke, Howard Dean, Jim McGreevey, etc.; as well as once-closeted celebrities of all kinds: George Michael, k.d. Lang, Bishop Gene Robinson, Rosie O'Donnell, Billy Bean, Martina Navratilova, Chad Allen, Liz Smith, Gore Vidal, Melissa Etheridge, Richard Chamberlain, David Geffen, Jason Gould, Ellen DeGeneres, Esera Tuolo, RuPaul, Greg Louganis, etc. Robust and irresolvable subjects such as: Should We Out?, The Mind of A Gay Basher, Monogamy (for Gays), The Gay Heroes of the Terrorist Tragedy, Why Are We Gay?, Addicted To Sex, Beyond Bi, Battered Lovers, Inside The NFL Closet, Up Against The Mormon Church, Wake Up And Smell The Hate were written by seasoned journalists from a gay perspective that simply couldn't be duplicated--even when, in the late 90s, some of these subjects and celebrities became big-ticket sellers for mainstream media.
When Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe called a press conference to say he was gay, claiming, "The Advocate is going to out me!" (not entirely true, by the way. I was the Executive Editor at the time, and the far more exciting story is the one that went on behind the scenes--a feverish brouhaha starring editors, writers, the publisher, and an advertiser. But I'm saving that one for my book), the world was riveted to The Advocate. What would the magazine tackle next?
OK, that was then. I get it. The media and world has changed. So what are we saying? Issues of the day are so uncomplicated LGBTs can digest them through short videos and skim-the-surface articles? We've advanced to the point where we now have everything straights have and are wildly welcomed round the world so let's move on? Have you been on walkabout? The rock is nowhere near the top of the mountain. Younger people may not embrace in-your-face activism as much as older generations had to--although the thousands and thousands of young faces in the streets last year protesting Proposition 8 certainly suggest a far more dynamic generation than most surveys indicate. No, I refuse to believe it's all about hook-ups, videos, sound bites, and downloading for them.
A year ago the CEO of Regent cavalierly told me that he backed the current Editor in Chief and Editorial Director of The Advocate when they made the decision to revamp the magazine into more of a community based publication (online and print), more about the readers and their interests, definitely not a newsmagazine, and with no celebrities. Help! The Advocate , once the keeper of the flame, the vessel for the entire history of the gay movement since 1967, with each new agonized-over news story becoming another link in the chain of that awesome legacy, now a community help line occasionally interrupted by ads from other Regent products?
And, please, indulge me a minute about celebrities, since I (along with former Advocate EICs Richard Rouilard , Jeff Yarbrough, Bruce Steele, and Anne Stockwell), worked my ass off to convince terrified gay and straight celebrities of all fields to venture into a scary gay publication like The Advocate. I did it because celebrities drew reader/browsers into the bigger issues you're trying to explore in the publication. Nine out of ten times, if we did it well, we'd have a much bigger audience for difficult subjects people otherwise resisted.
In the early 90s, the use of straight pro-gay celebrities (Madonna, Roseanne) gave great comfort to a readership choking on the self-hate most straight institutions were spewing at them about AIDS. In the mid-90s closeted celebrities suddenly began to come out. To everything a season: you can never underestimate the good Chastity Bono and Cher did at that time for young kids struggling with their mothers. At the turn of the century (2000), using even news celebrities such as Sharon Smith--whose lover was mauled to death in San Francisco by a neighbor's dogs--to discuss the rights we don't have as domestic partners, became a regular practice at the magazine. We were hardly alone. Who can forget Time magazine's cover with Brad Pitt from Seven Years In Tibet and the cover line, "Buddhism in America?"
Did it always work? No. Would it have been great if readers/browsers had flocked to the issues without celebrities? Sure, it was a hideous, time-consuming dance with publicist to make anything happen. But it was what had to be done so we did it. At any time we could have said, "Oh forget it, no more celebrities. Who needs to hear from Sean Penn about Milk? He's not talking to any press. Oh, really? That's what Tom Hanks' publicist told us when Philadelphia was about to come out. So we explained that it was fine for Tom to skip all the other press, but for him to go out there playing a hugely important gay character with AIDS at such a crucial time in history, without speaking to the magazine that connected directly to the audience he would be representing, well, bad idea. So Tom gave the interview. And Sean Penn? A macho bad boy with God knows what kind of past attitudes about and actions towards gays, rising out of the ashes of his loner life to literally embody every molecule of Harvey Milk--this wouldn't be an interesting journey for Advocate devotes to have followed?
Maybe, people just don't care about that stuff anymore? That must be it. Award winning think pieces? Getting interesting LGBTs to tell their stories, how they deal with shame, self-hate, stunted growth, and derailed creativity? How they finally find a way out? All the way out? Maybe everybody is already out. I'm just living in another era. We're beyond gay...again. Is that why The Advocate quit this incredibly difficult work? Am I to assume that younger LGBTs today simply had no interest in reading about the significance of openly gay Adam Lambert soaring his way through American Idol ? Or later learning from the once must-read publication what it was like for him in an exclusive interview? They'd rather pick up Details and watch him making out and posing with women? Pleeeeeease! Just shoot me! I don't believe it. Or worse, how could this publication ever let candidate Obama become President Obama without first addressing this constituency about why he thinks marriage is between a man and woman only? Where were the hard questions? Where was The Advocate?
I'll tell you where: "Straight Guys Tell"...all about what they think of gay men. That's their latest cover story. Honestly, in what universe is this a timely story? Oh, and note how seductive this subject is for gay women--a demographic Regent Media has killed off completely. Not that they' did that all alone. Women are a pain in the butt, a near-impossible sell, period. I would know. I am one. As EIC of The Advocate for 7 years, we managed to move their percentage numbers up from 3% to nearly 30% at one point, but it was a nonstop, disheartening battle. And yet, so what? The right owner (not Regent and, God help us, not PlanetOut) would be interested enough to understand that The Advocate was once the only read gay women over 30 indulged. Figure it out! After all, a cogender Advocate sold the best of all.
Instead, Regent Media, following the "wisdom" of PlanetOut's CEO, put The Advocate under the editorial direction of Out's Editor in Chief. Yes, Out's EIC has been the boss of The Advocate's EIC. (Full disclosure: for a period of months I remained EIC of The Advocate when LPI Media bought Out and I was named Editorial Director. I hired an EIC for Out and assisted the Out team in working its way clear of the mess left by its previous owner. During the whole time I trained my Executive Editor to take over the EIC job of The Advocate, which he did. In time I was no longer an EIC of one magazine while overseeing another. Additionally, before I had to leave my Editorial Director job in 2006, I enthusiastically hired the current EIC of Out. It was a good move. He's a perfect match for the magazine--clearly not The Advocate or I wouldn't be writing this article.)
In truth, from the moment we bought Out, the magazine made money. That's why it was purchased. It was to be the company's money cow. Gay men, sexy fashion, pretty pictures of sexy men in sexy fashion, cool stories; it wasn't brain surgery. Gay men aren't like gay women. They don't take the wait and see attitude: are you worthy of my money today? They're easier to please. And, yes, they love Out.
The hard sell is, was, and always would have been The Advocate. With its harsh features and photos that no advertiser wanted to be anywhere near, the magazine depended on dedicated readers that renewed their costly ($40+) subscriptions year after year. For them to do this, the content had to be astonishing. It was unimaginably difficult for a small staff to keep it up every two weeks, but somehow it happened. You canNOT do a magazine like The Advocate for advertisers. They're not thrilled about newsmagazines. They're not fun. Go count the ad pages in Time or Newsweek. If those magazine depended on ads to survive, they wouldn't. It's their large circulation, their readership combined with their website visitors that carry the brands forward. We do it for the users, the readers. They will pay for it (online or print) if you make it absolutely essential and as exclusive as possible. And I refuse to get into another deadening debate about print media vs. online. It's distracting and sends us flying wildly past the point. The point is content: Information and really great stories! If that's NOT there, no one else will be either. What's the compelling new story?
Although I would be the first to say that the times have changed since the high dramas of the early AIDS epidemic or the stormy outing debates or the meth and unsafe sex collisions, I do not believe the fundamental reason for The Advocate is fini. There are shit loads of rights we don't have. But lecturing about it is a bore. Someone once said teaching people about good and evil won't get you much of a congregation, but telling them a good story like "Noah's Ark" will.
But, Buddy, that's hard work. And if your media is gay, there's even more resistance. You need to uncover your own facts, truths others would rather you not know; you need a team of editors, art directors, photo editors, writers and photographers who are insanely devoted to the magazine and to upholding its tradition of great journalism that other teams of editors before them have fought just as hard to sustain; and then you need the vision and creativity it takes to draw in what's essential for the story (an interview, a lost clue, a new piece of research) and you need the courage to deliver it! Sometimes that courage means spending the money it takes to send someone to where the story is, or hiring the right writer or editor for the job, or firing the wrong ones, or not changing the mission statement of a legend just because you can't figure out how to make it pay.
After LPI Media was sold for $31.1 million in 2005 to PlanetOut--who threw its wrecking ball at The Advocate, devaluing its content by putting it on Gay.com, spending no money on it's website, and ruining the importance of its subs to advertisers by offering them cheap with Gay.com memberships--it took them less than two years to diminish the worth of the company to the 4.7 million Here! Media (Regent) paid for it. Only Out pulled through in decent financial shape. That credit belongs to its EIC.
The original owners, publishers, and editors of Advocate ran it because they cherished it. In recent years, I fear the owners have purchased it because they wanted to say they "had it," like a feather in their caps or a notch on their belts, they owned The Advocate. Some even bragged that their mission was to "save it," that is until they understood what that really entailed. You can't save it if you don't know what it is. Save it from what, from whom?
Most of all, it saddens me to think that when I worked for The Advocate the one thing I always had going for any story we did was the power and reputation of the magazine. Often that convinced someone to talk to us, tell us something they'd told no one else. I fear that's no longer true. For many reasons, some I've mentioned, some I won't talk about here, some I know nothing about, our friend and warrior, The Advocate, has been badly bashed.
Follow Judy Wieder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/molokai65
David Badash: Ins and Outs of Gay News Sites: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?
The fate of The Advocate is the fault and decision of Paul Colichman and Hicklin, so they should expect some tough words. Hicklin, in particular, Mr. Serious Journalist (before shifting to fashion mags), betrayed The Advocate with his inattention. Go ahead: Google Hicklin and Advocate and see what you find. Grand plans? Any kind of ownership or understanding or clear thought? No. A few comments about Advocate.com. Otherwise, not much.
Hicklin and Colichman are the men who reassured Jon Barrett that a rudderless monthly Advocate was somehow relevant to the times and the audience. Perhaps the maintenance of a West Coast-based gay newsmagazine offers no credibility on the New York media cocktail circuit--and thus wasn't worth Hicklin's attention or support. Too harsh? Maybe, but I don't ever expect really to hear Hicklin's side. If he has ever expressed an understanding of the Advocate's role in American gay life and media (and history), I've never heard it.
I remember it from the HUGE (WAY pre-internet) format years, so OBVIOUSLY hard to stuff in a European mailbox... but my heart always jumped when I saw that my "escape" into the world I wanted to live in, had just arrived at my doorsteps, in its very discreet manila envelope...
The Advocate was my "guide" to Gay Life, and an amazing resource in HIV-AIDS information and all sorts of other fascinating stuff I would devour in probably half a day, non-stop...Information I could not find anywhere else (remember, no internet).
What a shame...
Planet Out is, as far as I can see, nothing more than a queer version of the TV home-and-garden channels that are half-hour commercials for expensive renovations and DIY stores. It's a lot of flash and no substance.
The corporate puppetmasters are trying to destroy real journalism. The Advocate was real journalism.
What could've been done right...lots of things. Unfortunately upper management was more concerned with golden parachutes and buy outs, not serving the LGBT community. So they took the money and run the rest of us be damned.
One may quibble with Ms. Wieder's vision. But at least she had a vision—and still has. This is more than can be said for her successors as editorial director.
BTW: The position of editorial director meant that she oversaw Advocate and Out, as well as Alyson Books, HIV Plus, and the launch of Out Traveler.
Judy, your loyalty to human rights and your honest journalism is admirable. We need individuals like you to continue to challenge the real life issues in the LBBT Community and beyond. I'm eager to read your book! LL
Karen, the CEO, would occasionally come out of her office to actually talk to the employees. (But only because the VP of our section asked her to.) At that time we owned LPI media (The Advocate, Out, etc..) and we were watching it's market share slide. In our meeting Karen described the state of the print side of the company with lots of "it's tough times" and "it's a challenging market to be in." Blah blah blah. And then came the question and answer period...
Considering that g@y.com was giving away free Advocate subscriptions to it's hundreds of thousand of paid subscribers how is it possible our circulation is decreasing? Meanwhile, Karen talks of a publishing industry in decline... yet The Economist had increased their circulation by 100% over the previous four years. (And in this current year of 2009 by another 14% year over year.) So, what is the difference between The Advocate and The Economist? Quality. That is the difference.
I pointed out to Karen that anybody can get low quality skim worthy news every single day, updated constantly, on the internet. That if wanted to increase our circulation that improving the VALUE of our content to our readers would be the way to do it.
But that's never been The Gay Way, has it now.
Save for the street.
And the readers of the The Avocado never wanted to know a damedn thing about Marsha P. Johnson.
Or Morty Manford, for that matter.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein13-2009oct13,0,4566962.story
The "we" out here, the subscribers, never knew what was going on with The Advocate and this is certainly news that we didn't want. Yes, The Advocate was a sign of the times and we will all mourn it's death. In more competent hands, it could have lived to be much bigger and could have played an integral part in the fight for GLBT equality. Sorry to hear that mismanagement and money-hungry people drove it into the ground. I guess greed comes in all colors including gay. All totally believable in this day in time when the $ trumps everything including the fight for equal rights.
That's the sad thing. Even if the current owners wanted to raise the quality of the content they would be limited by their own poor understanding of what quality actually is.
There is MUCH to criticize in PlanetOut, LPI, Regent and everyone who ever walked those halls. But Judy lives in a glass house. She's the wrong person to lead this charge. She's as culpable as any of them. And Judy would do well to remember that she left a lot of bitter employees in her wake. She may want to take out the long knives in her yet-to-be-completed autobiography, but she does so at her own peril. There are many people with long memories and longer knives ready to answer her call.
Note: Any PlanetOut, LPI, Regent executives who are feeling righteous these days and who want to do a public take down of their gay media enemies should probably shut up and go into exile on the Island of Misfit Executives. They deserve each other. But I suppose the alternative is just as fine: wrestle it out in public like this. It makes for great spectator sport and you're only proving the point that you're all a bunch of business failures who can't move on.
(end of comment.)
Ask yourself this, if the advocate arrived in your mail box, having been produced on a photo copier, yet contained actual quality articles and information inside of it, would you read it? I would.
Now ask yourself this. If the advocated arrived in your mail box, having been produced in full color with beautiful glossy pages, yet contained no actual quality writing, analysis, or insight... would you read it? I wouldn't.