“Straight people, they’re not so interested in us.”

Speaking of Hank Stuever, there’s a great interview of Stuever by Sean Bugg in MetroWeekly about Stuever’s upcoming book, Tinsel,  and thoughts on journalism in general and his transition to WaPo television critic. Here’s the most interesting point:

MW: As someone who works for a major media outlet, why do you think we still have issues with news stories, obituaries and other pieces that leave out basic information about people’s orientation?

STUEVER: I was on a panel about this once, when the obituary thing was just out of control — it was Luther Vandross, Susan Sontag, Ismail Merchant. There was a spate of them where the gayness had been left out, for various reasons. I said that the problem with the obituary thing is that we’re talking about the ends of people’s lives when, really, what we’re bad at is covering gay life. The living, not the dead.

I’m much more worried about how the Post and other mainstream outlets still approach gay with caution. We still haven’t learned about just covering everyday gay, except in the food section and the home section. Washington was sort of the closet capital, and still is in a lot of ways. But the people have changed enough that the Post can at least not look completely unaware of the fact that there are lots and lots of influential, interesting and totally newsworthy gay people and gay things going on in town.

But here’s the thing, and I think this transcends media, and I hate saying this: Straight people, they’re not so interested in us. They really aren’t. And part of it is that to them gay equals a sexual act. The other part of the problem is gay equals not them, therefore not interested. I find this with my extremely enlightened straight friends, they still don’t quite have a handle on the best reason for legalizing gay marriage, which is those thousand civil rights that just automatically transfer with a heterosexual marriage license from state to state. It takes some explaining to them to show how ludicrous it is to set up a crazy quilt America where some states have gay marriage and some states don’t, because if I get married and then by some misfortune move back home to Oklahoma, my rights don’t come with me.

But broadly, people don’t view gay as a culture, they view it as a sex act. And so the Washington Post gets hinky on it, all mainstream media get hinky on it, because they don’t know anything about it. All they know is the idea of gay sex still makes them uncomfortable. Well, the idea of straight sex makes me uncomfortable, but there’s a lot of it in our newspaper. We will always need our gay media to make sure that the fullest experience is represented.

As a Style section writer, Stuever has always been able to find interesting things to say about LGBT people in DC and about their lives. I still talk about one of my favorite Stuever stories, where he talks about the last days of D.C’s infamous Southeast gay neighborhood, full of strip bars, drag shows, and sex clubs, which was bulldozed for the new baseball stadium

No amount of Whitney Houston and Toni Braxton and Mariah Carey songs could mask the pain. One by one, until the wee hours Monday morning, the reigning drag queens of Half Street SE descended the stairs at Ziegfeld’s cabaret to strut their last, blowing kisses to admirers and making a few more sweepingly glamorous gestures — all of it a farewell to the shabby but perfect place they called home for three decades.

Ziegfeld’s, and four other establishments on the same forsaken industrial block at Half and O streets, closed yesterday in a cruelly predictable high school metaphor: The jocks win.

<snip>

Far from the happy, let’s-walk-the-Labrador-to-Whole-Foods realm of Logan and Dupont circles, the O Street scene was the real deal: grubby, hidden even within sight of the Capitol, and just plain ugly-gorgeous.

The C-word in the newsroom, but not the newspaper

In the punch heard throughout the media world, a revered Washington Post editor and writer punches out a younger co-worker after the co-worker says “Don’t be such a cocksucker.”  The editor–Henry Allen–is asked not to return to the newsroom and the taunter, Manuel Roig-Franzia, remains at the paper.

In today’s WaPo, columnist Kathleen Parker retold the story but the word “cocksucker” was replaced with a “[bleep]“  Now, I’m not saying that it’s a word that needs to show up in the paper.  In fact, arguably it shouldn’t. But it is curious how little attention has been paid to the schoolyard taunt “cocksucker” compared to the chatter about the punch in response and the larger meaning about passion in journalism. It’s also curious that it’s a term that goes uncommented on in the newsroom–okay, it did result in a punch–but is considered too provocative for the paper itself.

In Gawker, of all places, the issue of the homophobic taunt was raised with a level of seriousness unusual for the gossip site by Hamilton Nolan.

It’s a slur because it was meant to be a slur. Why not ask Manuel why in the world he would use “cocksucker” as anything less than a term of endearment? Outrageous! A slur is not rendered moot to the average testosterone-filled male simply because it’s true. I may be ugly, but I don’t want it pointed out to me.

Nolan was responding to a post by WaPo television critic Hank Stuever who wrote about the battle on his personal blog, replacing the c-word with “coughstucker.”

My only other angle to the story is this: What made Henry snap was that a writer called him a naughty word, an epithet that rhymes with “coughstucker” and is playfully or spitefully reserved as a way to insult a man, by implying he’s gay.

Being an enthusiastic coughstucker myself, I would someday like to ask Henry if it was the insulting delivery of the word, or the subtext of gayness that the word implies that angered him most? Seeing as how our department is gleefully R-rated in much of its casual discourse, it’s hard to know. (The worst thing about all this? The possibility that we could all get hauled into a sensitivity seminar. Not Henry, of course, he’s outta there, but the rest of us. To which I say FUCK THAT, oops, I mean, aw hell, no.)

Back to my question: Was it about the person who said it? The way he said it? Or that it was said at all? If another person in Style called me a coughstucker, I’d just have to shrug and use the Popeye retort: I am what I am.

Stuever’s comments got the attention of Washington Examiner gossip columnist Tara Palmeri who asked whether Steuver was implying Allen was homophobic.

I, in no way, think Henry is a homophobe,” the Post reporter told Yeas & Nays. “I just wonder why straight men say that to straight men,” he added.

He said he wrote the blog post because he was interested in the language of Friday’s newsroom argument at Post, which pitted Allen and Roig-Franzia against each other, and got so much media attention that it warranted a video re-enactment from the Washington City Paper’s staff.

“It’s more of a semantics thing,” he continued.

It would never occur to me to wonder whether Allen was homophobic. The more interesting question is what was the intent of Roig-Franzia. Why isn’t anyone speculating about why he used the term to begin with, turning the newsroom into a junior high school playground? I agree with Stuever that it’s interesting why the term was used, but I’m more curious about Roig-Franzia’s thinking, not Allen’s.

The term “cocksucker” is a homophobic taunt that is wrong in the locker room and the playground, but is especially wrong for the workplace. Public figures get in trouble for using homophobic terms that are arguably less offensive.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think WaPo necessarily needs to implement a “sensitivity seminar” that Stuever dreads. I don’t think the WaPo is a hotbed of homophobia. I doubt that Roig-Franzia is homophobic. But it is curious how little attention the taunt–and the taunter–have gotten in the retelling of the story.

LGBT Journalists Hall of Fame: Gail Shister

Established in 2005 as part of NLGJA’s 15th anniversary celebration, the LGBT Journalists Hall of Fame was launched to honor LGBT journalists who have shown courage and resolve by telling the truth, including their own personal truths, whatever the cost and whatever the difficulties.

Gail Shister was inducted in 2008. Here’s an excerpt from her biography for the LGBT Journalists Hall of Fame:

“Gail Shister is widely regarded as the first ‘out’ reporter in mainstream news media in the United States.

“The groundbreaking journalist earned the distinction of being, at three separate newspapers, the news organization’s first female sportswriter.”

Click here to read the complete biography.

Post-Maine: Media Plays Armchair Quarterback

Two of the most prominent newspapers in the country–the New York Times and the Washington Post–played armchair quarterback on Thursday, talked to one of the same people–Evan Wolfson–but ended up with different takes on the future of tactics in the same-sex marriage battle.

In the WaPo, Ashley Surdin wrote a news article (that read like an analysis) with the heading “Gay groups say loss won’t alter strategy.”  Now, reporters don’t usually write their headlines, but I’m not really story Surdin’s story/analysis actually came to that conclusion.  She interviewed Wolfson, referred to generic “advocates,” and had another quote from a National Gay and Lesbian Task Force person.  The conclusion: despite losing 30 times in a row, no new tactics.

Except, that’s not really what was reported/analyzed.

But most of the focus on the state stems from a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 that is expected to go to trial in January. Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, onetime opponents in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, are representing same-sex couples in the case, arguing, among other things, that Proposition 8 violates gays’ right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

The federal case marks a shift in direction for the gay rights movement. Activists and legal strategists historically have avoided taking the issue to a narrowly divided Supreme Court, fearing a major setback. And though not all gay rights advocates agree on the timing, there is a growing consensus that there may never be a perfect time for a federal challenge.

“The whole idea that somehow you have to choose between federal and state work is a false ‘either or.’ The reality is, every movement needs to do both,” Wolfson said. “You don’t win on the federal level without engaging in those conversations and legal victories in states and communities. At the same time, you want to be part of a national conversation that helps create a climate for more states to move in the right direction.”

Fairly boilerplate talk from Wolfson, but doesn’t the focus on a federal lawsuit represent an altered tactic?

In the NYT, we get pretty much the same ground covered in an article billed as a “news analysis” by Abby Goodnough. She talks to Wolfson, the NYT favorite gay pundit Richard Socarides, plus Maggie Gallagher and Jennie Pizer from Lambda Legal. Goodnough determines that tactics are going to change.

In Maine, advocates had stuck to a familiar path: using their own personal stories, they tried to persuade voters that gay people were no different from their straight neighbors and deserved equal treatment under the law.

Now, many will argue that that approach is not enough. Some are already pressing for more aggressive tactics, like speeding up a ballot measure to reverse California’s ban on same-sex marriage next year, instead of taking more time to build support. Others want to focus on swaying federal lawmakers to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which Representative Barney Frank, the nation’s highest-ranking openly gay politician, has called foolish at this point.

“The state-by-state strategy that looked clever a few years ago has run its course,” said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “The states that were easy to get have been gotten.”

In other second day stories, the Boston Globe tells us people on all sides are “reflect[ing]” while the San Francisco Chronicle says activists will “return to the drawing board” while pointing the focus back on California.  NPR says that activists may wait it out, but quote the ever-present Socarides about moving to a federal strategy.

The Globe story may have been the best of the lot, in part because parts of Maine are essentially Boston suburbs and because they talked to people closer to the action.

These kinds of stories are important, but it’s telling how little new information there is.  If reporters talked to people other than Evan Wolfson or Richard Socarides (or David Mixner), what would they be hearing?  Why do reporters turn to the same voices who say the same things? And what’s the purpose of the armchair quarterback story anyway?

Advocate No Longer a Standalone Print Publication

Here Media’s CEO Paul Colichman confirms the Queerty rumor that the Advocate was no longer going to be a stand-alone print product, but instead packaged with Out.

The recent closures of Gourmet, Portfolio, Genre, and other magazines have shown the weaknesses of the print publication model. The rising costs of paper, printing, and postage have become a major problem. Therefore, we plan to greatly reduce these costs by jointly marketing The Advocate and Out magazines. We will fulfill Advocate subscriptions via joint delivery with Out. Advocate subscribers will continue to receive their monthly magazine along with a copy of Out at no extra charge. This move will also allow us to continue to offer Out at affordable subscription prices, either as a stand-alone title or with the choice to receive The Advocate as well. The strategy preserves our ability to deliver the same high-quality print magazines while allocating additional resources to editorial content.

Colichman praises Out’s Aaron Hicklin, Advocate’s Jon Barrett and Advocate Washington Correspondent Kerry Eleveld and says that the company has hired additional staff to perform cross-platform work, but says four editorial positions were eliminated at the Advocate. He also says Out and the Advocate showed an advertising profit in 2009.

UPDATED: Wieder Attacks the Advocate

The pile-on of the management of the Advocate continues with a blistering–and self-congratulatory–piece in the Huffington Post by the Advocate’s former editor-in-chief Judy Wieder.  Feeding off the rumor–unchallenged by Regent Media–that the Advocate will no longer be a stand-alone magazine, Wieder excoriates the current leadership at Regent Media.

What the f happened? What would turn 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 competition, 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 the news. Stories that appeared in the magazine became the news event itself.

Wieder heaps blame on Aaron Hicklin, editorial director of LPI Media which includes Out and the Advocate (although she can’t seem to spell his name right despite having hired him to helm Out) and says that his focus on gay men has hurt the Advocate’s brand. She is critical of the current cover story–on what straight men think of gays in the context of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell–saying “OMG. I’m surprised the publication is even going to be a pamphlet for while. In what universe is this a timely story? And, please note how seductive this is for gay women–a demographic Regent Media has killed off completely.”

Wieder was controversial when she ran the Advocate. Her push to the mainstream was widely criticized–along with her focus on celebrity news and perceived lack of criticism of LGBT elite organizations–by many inside and outside the LGBT media. She was described as difficult to work for and was often fodder for gossip pages and bloggers.

Still, Wieder says there’s room for a robust Advocate.

Although I would be the first to say that the times have changed since the high drama of the early AIDS epidemic or outing or frightened advertisers venturing into gay publications, I do not believe the essential reason for The Advocate is over. LGBTs still don’t have all their rights and they won’t for a long time. But lecturing about that 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, works well.

You need raw facts, truths, great photo journalism, current people and events that everyone is dying to learn more about–and then you need the vision and creativity it takes to draw in what’s essential for the story (a person, an interview, a lost clue, a new piece of research) and you need the courage to deliver it! 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 the reputation of The Advocate. Often that convinced someone to talk to us, tell us something they’d told no one else. I fear that is no longer true. For many reason, some I’ve mentioned, some I won’t talk about here, some I know nothing about, our friend and hero, The Advocate, has been badly bashed.

UPDATE: Huffington Post has pulled Wieder’s original column and replaced it with a new version where Hicklin isn’t mentioned by name. It’s largely a different argument than what was originally placed on the website, with new points. Very odd.