Media Could Use a Stonewall Uprising of Their Own

Last month, National Public Radio, a supposed bastion of liberal media bias, found itself in the crosshairs of the lesbian and gay community over an online review of Outrage, a documentary chronicling the hypocrisy of prominent, purportedly closeted politicians with staunchly anti-gay voting records.

What sparked the controversy was not the documentary itself, but the fact that NPR's review failed to name names. In fact, while Nathan Lee, the review's initial author, had included the identities of those fingered in the film, NPR editors took it upon themselves to censor the review prior to publication.

Would a review of a film exposing the hypocrisy of politicians on any other subject fail to identify the politicians in question? Not likely.

Alas, NPR's skittishness seems to be reserved only for those who may be gay and enjoy positions of power to legislate on matters directly affecting the gay community. NPR has shown no such hesitation speculating about the sexuality of celebrities like American Idol's recently out-and-proud Adam Lambert.

Such is the sad state of affairs that is the modern media landscape when it comes to issues of real substance and importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

Forty years ago this weekend, LGBT patrons of New York City's Stonewall Inn, long tired of police harassment, took to the streets in protest following yet another raid of the Inn. The uprising is widely credited with sparking the modern gay civil rights movement.

And yet, 40 years later, despite increased public acceptance and the passage of some basic legal protections, not only is sexual orientation still a taboo for many in the media, all too often it serves as a focal point for hate, ridicule, and misinformation.

Tens of thousands of same-sex couples are now legally married in the United States. To many, this represents real progress toward increased equality; to Fox News' top-rated host Bill O'Reilly, the simple act of two people in love making it official could open the door to people marrying "a turtle," "a goat," "a duck," or "a dolphin." This coming from a guy who once famously said, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff."

Relax, indeed.

O'Reilly and several of his Fox News colleagues -- folks like Glenn Beck, who used dolls to make the point -- have even inexplicably argued that marriage equality could lead to "triad" marriages.

Perhaps riffing on Fox News' tune, the Christian Broadcasting Network's Pat Robertson recently suggested the "ultimate conclusion" of legal same-sex marriage is legal polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, and pedophilia.

As Congress took up debate this year over legislation to enhance the federal hate-crimes statute by including gay, lesbian, and transgender people among its protected classes -- race, color, religion, and national origin have been protected for years -- media conservatives became absolutely unhinged.

O'Reilly said of the hate-crimes bill, which included new protections for the disabled as well, "[Y]ou could make an argument that a pedophile has a disease, and because the disease is there, he's a target or she's a target," later adding that pedophiles could be included because "[d]isability is included. They have a mental disability." He's dead wrong. Pedophilia is not considered a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; in fact, the ADA specifically excludes pedophilia.

Once again, O'Reilly wasn't alone attacking the hate crimes legislation with easily debunked misinformation. Focus on the Family's James Dobson, radio host Rush Limbaugh, and Robertson marched in lockstep, all essentially reading from the same set of patently false talking points.

In addition to being relentlessly maligned during policy discussions, LGBT Americans remain the butt of jokes in conservative media circles. Take for example, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough applauding a viewer's "wit," saying to political analyst Mike Barnicle, "They've started calling you 'Brokeback Barnicle' because of how close you and [co-host] Willie [Geist] sit."

Then there's the in-your-face bigotry of people like Michael Savage, the third-most-listened-to radio voice in America, who once likened gay parenting to "child abuse"; called a member of the transgender community a "sick degenerate"; and warned his listeners that "[w]hen you hear 'human rights,' think gays. ... [T]hink only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son."

Filling the ranks of every media outlet, including those with a conservative slant, to be sure, one would certainly find at least a few gay, lesbian, and transgender employees -- some in positions of real power. It's long past time for these employees to stand up, take a page from the Stonewall uprising, and unflinchingly say, "Enough is enough." To remain publicly silent would be an outrage.

Karl Frisch is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Follow Karl Frisch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KarlFrisch

Comments

[superstition]

According to some blogging, the DNC is unhappy with bloggers trying to hold them accountable:

The DNC insider:

"[T]he blogs are closer to the truth [on how the Dems plan to handle gay issues] than the party wants us to know. They used the blogs to their advantage during the election, and now they're trying to figure out how to control what's become a nuisance for them. The current method for the fundraiser is by not telling the truth."

Aravosis: "The Democratic party finds you and your civil rights a nuisance."

"DNC may have lied about $1m take from fundraiser; DNC insider says blogs are right on party's intentions towards gays"
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/dnc-may-have-lied-about-1m-take-from.html
"So, DNC, did that fundraiser really bring in a million bucks?"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11824/so-dnc-did-that-fundraiser-really-bring-in-a-million-bucks
"DNC Insider Tells Different Story On Gay Dollars"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11825/dnc-insider-tells-different-story-on-gay-dollars

[CornetMustich]

Enough is enough.

Re Obama, DOMA, DADT, national health, "war" funding, bail-outs for Wall St looters, Israel-Palestine, etc..

He's looking more like Bush in black face, but he knows better.

And for the marriage foes in the media and elsewhere, please find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love, I did.

Kudos to civil marriage.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

And remember, our country is great because we have freedom of religion and freedom from it too..

[Clownbaby]

Well I'm glad Obama is in office, he'll change things for homosexuals right away.... oh wait, he supports essentially the same policies on marriage as the Bush administration.

[rextrek]

any politician who willingly leads or participates in Antigay Legislation - SHOULD be OUTED!

[SonofLiberty1]

And what if they are not gay?

[GardenerNorCal]

There aren't any gays in the media are there?

[LintLass]

What's that got to do anything if the topic's taboo to report about? :)

[Lenyon]

I am not in favor af homosexual marrige so I won't be marrying one. However if you truly believe in marrige equality then you must also support the multiple marriges of mormons, muslims and even the rare cultural marrige of a woman to more than one man.

[MSNichols]

This is a fear and "talking points" response to basic question of equal rights.

I always wonder if their was legislative and legal rights withheld from mouth breathers, if the mouth breathers would be willing to wait for their rights to come or stand up against the injustice.

[LintLass]

Actually, you don't *have* to: Multiple marriages are not a simple matter of stopping discrimination, particularly Mormon and various Muslim forms of polygamy: the legal codes don't exist, and they're inherently unequal as the *religions* practice them: one man has more rights over a bunch of women than they have with regards to him or each other.

I would support coming up with some legal codes for poly marriages of all kinds, but they'd have to, legally, at least, be absolutely equitable for all concerned. That's not on a slippery slope, that's a whole other hill to climb, if as a nation we choose to. I'm all for that, actually, but it's a separate issue.

Poly groups are actually best off effectively forming a corporation, at this point, is my understanding.

[LintLass]

Besides, it's hardly like we owe the Mormons anything with regard to marriage rights. By that logic, if they support polygamy, they should be supporting LBGT marriage rights.

[Bill Mynatt]

No, actually I don't and neither does anyone else. The history of those polygamous marriages you mention is the subjugation and objectification of women and has nothing to do with marriage equality. As for polyandry, show me a culture where it has ever existed and we can look at the reasons for it and see if there is any validity.

[domicile]

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/gays-in-texas-arrested-for-public-intoxication-in-stonewallstyle-raid.html

[domicile]

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_11499.php

[domicile]

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1458523.html

[SonofLiberty1]

What do you expect from Texans? I have the right to ask because I used to live there.

[Morcat]

True, and yet on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, TX Alcoholic Beverage Comm "Police" can go into a peaceful gay bar on the south side of Ft. Worth in a 1960s style raid and gay bash, sending one victim to the ICU. Our gay citizens -- friends and family -- deserve so much better. It remains to be seen whether any media other than the local ones will cover it at all, and even if they do, how might that coverage be slighted?

[domicile]

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/gays-in-texas-arrested-for-public-intoxication-in-stonewallstyle-raid.html

[SonofLiberty1]

Police brutality is police brutality period.

[PhilipB]

Dear Karl Frisch,
Thank you for this interesting article.
I appreciate your pointing out the mis-information and outright hate levied by some in the media against a whole group of people: LGBT
There are other example, while less inflammatory are insidious: code words like whine and language like panties in a bunch to characterize a real grievance in in-equality of rights.

I am not so sure, though, about "outing"
Some of the reasons many people would want to be married rather than domestic partnership is that this separate institution is in no way equal in recognition by the states or federally. There is also an important question of privacy. For a person to say on employment forms and the like that they have a domestic partnership is to come out every time. There are real reasons based on actual discrimination that a person could legitmately decide not to reveal this.
To "out" someone is to say they have no right to privacy.
On the one hand elected officials who are closeted who actively work against LGBT rights makes me angry. On the other hand, it is these rights themselves which would afford privacy.
For me, I encourage people to come out, but I think that to point the finger at a closeted person and declare they are gay with accompanying evidence is, well, intrusive, possibly harmful, and just not a very kind thing to do.

[LintLass]

It's one thing to 'out' someone, though if one's secretly using one's closetedness to actively do harm to the LBGT community while using one's power to escape the oppressions you visit on others... I have no sympathy.

This report wasn't *outing* people, anyway, it was a study of homophobes in power who'd already been caught and 'outed' by scandal, ... to describe the patterns.

[PhilipB]

hi,
I was referring to the documentary on NPR, mentioned at the beginning of this article.
I have no sympathy either for the politicians described, but I do think that 'outing" is more nuanced.
Thanks

[KatarinaNolte]

Perhaps now that it is widely accepted that a certain percentage of the population is homosexual, people are even more afraid that others (anyone) could possibly assume that they too are gay.
Just because they accept it as a generalized fact doesn't mean they've fully digested it yet. To do this they would have to deal with their own sexuality and that seems to be a big problem especially as it relates to their public life.
So homosexuality or bisexuality are not fully accepted because despite seeming liberation people have problems with sexuality because they belive it's a big deal and they will be judged because they judge themselves and others.
You can't expect acceptance from people who don't fully accept themselves and are envious of those who came to grips with their own sexuality and are proudly owning it.
And don't forget the growing numbers of sexually frustrated perverts. They can never come out and be accepted and they are the most likely to judge others.

[S1m0n]

"Would a review of a film exposing the hypocrisy of politicians on any other subject fail to identify the politicians in question?"

Would a film about the love lives of straight, unmarried politicians - hypocritical or otherwise - even get made, let alone reviewed by NPR, let alone edited to purge names from the review?

[LintLass]

Every night on the news?

[ponderingmuch]

So, name the names that NPR doesn't.

[menmykoko]

To above:
He is not asking to stand up and say "I'm here and i'm queer...". He is saying that the employee should stand up to the hateful rhetoric espoused by these ignorant bigoted bullies. There is a difference in offering private unsolicited information and not allowing discriminatory unwarranted hate speech. But, if you are so afraid, then don't do it. You can bet I would go straight to my boss.

[superstition]

Stonewall Revisited? Fort Worth, TX Gay Bar Raided Last�Night
http://dym-sum.com/2009/06/28/no166/

'He was just walking to the bathroom when an officer grabbed him and shoved him against a wall and pulled his head back,' said Chris Hightower of Fort Worth, a friend of the patron. 'He (the injured man) was then thrown to the ground and three other officers were on him.'

I was still standing near the entrance to the VIP lounge with a friend when an officer approached a man standing there. The man had water in his hand...The officer then said that he was going to arrest him for public intoxication. The man said, 'You can"t do that I am just standing here right now drinking water.' At the time the officer shoved the man over towards the wall near the dressing room and then back to the rear wall near the men"s restroom, then down onto the floor. Several other officers, made their way back there to hold that ONE MAN down on the ground as they placed restraints on him.

Tammye Nash at the Dallas Voice has spoken to the sister of the critically injured man, Chad Gibson:

'However, a second CAT scan performed this afternoon showed that the bleeding in his brain had increased.'

Kristy said Chad has awake today, but that he has no memory of the incident in the bar and that his memory of events today have been spotty."

[Matt Carter]

Sad and true. Also not shocking. I find it comical when supposed "liberals" get all flustered because you're calling them on their double standards. But of course, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having the civil rights problems we're having today, right? Unfortunately, we can't change attitudes until we change policy, and we all see what a fight that is. People on this very blog (a "liberal" blog at that) denounce us for being too vociferous. Yawn. There goes history, passing them by.

I'm done trying to make people do things they don't want to do. Let's work the courts and the politicians. The media, and the folks it brainwashes, are a lost cause.

[Maxiesid]

Do you not see the whole problem with the statement "I am done trying to make people do things they don't want to do"????? Of course you don't, you find it 'comical' when 'liberals' get flustered. What do you find it when you encounter 'conservatives' that don't give a damn what you want or when you want it? Enlightening? Refreshing?
And you are wrong, you can't change policy unless you change attitudes.. and you can't change attitudes by demanding that people change them. Never works, never did

[dynwitch]

I don't think Matt actually read past the first paragraph of the article.

[kdhamm]

Sorry, Max, you are incorrect when you say ,
"And you are wrong, you can't change policy unless you change attitudes.. and you can't change attitudes by demanding that people change them. Never works, never did"

You may want to look back on American history.......Slavery didn't end because everyone's attitude changed and people of color weren't integrated into the military, because people's attitude changed......Women didn't get the right to vote because all the men had a change in attitude. That's what the constitution does for our country, it changes laws, because attitude doesn't, so that we can ALL BE EQUAL. .

There is a significant amount of history in America that is able to show example after example of why you are wrong. You might want to read some of it.