Matthew S. Bajko is a member of the NLGJA board and the former chair of the NLGJA LGBT Media Summit. He is an assistant editor for the Bay Area Reporter.
Sarah Blazucki is the NLGJA Vice President of Print and Digital. She is the former editor of Philadelphia Gay News. Under her direction, the staff won more than 35 awards for news writing, arts and entertainment, columns, photos and advertising.
Oriol Gutierrez is a member of NLGJA and the former NLGJA vice president of print and new media. He is the editor-in-chief of POZ and blogs at blogs.poz.com/oriol.
The opinions expressed by the bloggers and by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NLGJA, which is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers or by people providing comments. Comments are subject to approval. If you own rights to any visual content and do not want it to appear on this blog, contact us for removal.
By Todd A. Heywood (Senior Reporter, The American Independent)
LANSING - The conversation went something like this:
“You mean you would report my HIV status?” the man asked.
“If it was relevant to the story, yes, yes I would,” I told him.
The man stared at me in disbelief. “You can’t do that. I don’t want anyone to know I am HIV positive,” he said. Yet, he was appointed to a public body to represent people living with HIV in determining how the state would spend federal HIV dollars in addressing the epidemic in Michigan.
I was attending the Michigan HIV/AIDS Council meeting on March 14, and at issue was a required confidentiality agreement. The agreement had to be signed to attend the public meeting of a public body – a big no-no under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.
But the principle of confidentiality in relation to disclosing a person’s HIV status is, in fact, an important part of addressing HIV in the state. So this incident led me, in conversation with my editors at The American Independent and Between The Lines, to ask “shouldn’t we be transparent about how we determine to disclose or not disclose the name of a person living with HIV?” And, of course, we should.
Disclosure of an HIV status is a serious concern with implications going beyond the instant moment and can impact employment, relationships and civil rights. I know, because I am living with HIV. Many activists say that one incredibly important tool in fighting stigma and discrimination is for those living with HIV to be out about their status. However, that decision has to be – except in very rare, narrowly defined situations – a personal decision.
So how do we as news agencies go about reporting a person’s HIV status in a news story?
It is essential to understand that generally, reporting on someone’s HIV status will be predicated on their permission. In many instances, if someone’s status is important to the story, but disclosure could negatively impact that person, I will offer anonymity to the person. That decision is reached after discussions with both the subject, editors and sometimes with ethics experts.
As an ethical rule, we will not identify, by name, individuals charged under various HIV disclosure, exposure and transmission laws. Why?
First, as the Poynter Institute has told us in phone interviews, it is unethical to identify the alleged perpetrator and not the alleged victim in a case that is predicated on an act, usually sexual, that is consensual. Either both are named or neither will be named. It’s that simple.
Secondly, in multiple instances, police have charged a suspect under various state laws, naming that person as HIV-positive. But further review finds that the person is, in fact, not living with HIV. That disclosure, once made, cannot be taken back in this world of online permanence, and can lead to significant negative impacts on a person who is presumed to be living with HIV. It’s unfair, it’s unethical and we won’t do that.
Thirdly, in these cases, if the accused is willing to talk to us on the record and disclose his or her status, with his or her name attached, we will report that person’s name. We have in the past reported the stories of those living with HIV who admit to breaking a state disclosure law, but we have not identified them. Why? Because the story they have to tell about stigma and how it impacts their thinking in relation to disclosure is more important than the identity of the person – and identifying the person could lead to them facing criminal charges.
The media is not, and never should be, an arm of the police. It is not our job to help police embark on witch hunts to find additional alleged victims of HIV-specific crimes. The police can do that all on their own with a bevy of legal powers at their discretion.
Ultimately, we embark on very difficult conversations every day about when, if and how to identify those living with HIV, or those alleged to be living with HIV. We very carefully weigh the public’s right to know with the privacy of the person living with HIV. It is not an easy balancing act to perform, but it is essential to reporting about HIV in the United States and assuring our sources that we respect and value their privacy. These are just examples of the process we undergo as we evaluate reporting, and how we determine who to identify and when. We believe we regularly strike a solid balance between those conflicts of privacy and public policy, and drive for transparency on the public policy issue, not the details of whether or not a person is living with HIV.
Considering the recent blog post about coverage of HIV and AIDS issues by the gay press, and discussions at the LGBT Media Convening last month in Philadelphia on what stories get reported on and those that don’t, I thought it might be a good idea to revive this weekly posting that I had started in 2012.
Last week several LGBT newspapers ran preview stories of the upcoming hearings on same-sex marriage before the U.S Supreme Court – scheduled for March 26 and March 27. Both Atlanta’s Georgia Voice and the Dallas Voice devoted their front pages to teasing cover articles on the fight for marriage equality (the stories actually ran inside the papers.) The layout was also remarkably similar, with images of the imposing courthouse super-imposed in front of rainbow-flag colors.
The Washington Blade focused on the election of the new pontiff, Pope Francis, and the conditions of the space its city’s LGBT center is trying to move into. In Boston, Bay Windows had a locally-focused front page that covered everything from marriage equality news to an honor for former gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass).
The Bay Area Reporter, which has been running a series of stories on the lawsuits attempting to strike down California’s Prop 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act laws banning same-sex marriage, also featured local coverage on its front page. Stories included the possible opening of a long-closed Castro restaurant, Bay Area groups seeking pro-gay immigration reform, and San Francisco becoming only the third city in the nation to offset federal health care taxes city employees with same-sex partners incur.
Sacramento’s Outword was devoted to travel stories, while in Chicago, the Windy City Times splashed a photo of a smiling gay couple across its cover to promote a special wedding section inside. Amidst the legal wrangling in D.C., there is a push to adopt a same-sex marriage bill in the Illinois statehouse.
Here is a sampling of last week’s front pages from a variety of LGBT newspapers:
I recently attended a session of the NLGJA monthly webinars, entitled “Follow Your Inner Leader” with leadership coach and journalist Robert Naylor. The session was fascinating, and reminded me of some of the core skills it takes to differentiate between managing a situation and leading a situation.
Robert included in his discussion a push for creating core values for one’s self. What ideas, for example, best reflect what is important to me? As I answered that question on my notepad, I began to notice differences in marketable core values and non-marketable core values. Robert promised we could write him one-on-one and ask questions, and so I asked him about it.
He responded, “Core values are essential to doing business in an ethical way and they really should be part of every process. However, they are commodity only in that they form the basis of how we do business, not what we do to make money.”
Robert went on to compare the dilemma to opening a coffee shop. “[John Doe] could decide to sell fair trade organic coffees in what otherwise looks like a gallery space in which local artists are allowed to exhibit. The furniture could be refurbished from salvage yards because he doesn’t want to contribute to the carbon footprint by purchasing new items. [Values] could form the basis of how he treats employees, making sure they are treated and paid fairly, and the way he greets customers. In that sense, he would not be just selling coffee, he would be selling his ideals.”
Robert recommended not abandoning our core values in order to make a profit, but rather incorporating them into “something tangible” and “make them the foundation of [your] business practices.”
The truth is, we can’t always turn our passions into profit. Making enough money to eat is important, but it’s just as important we make enough money to eat for tomorrow and the next day and the next (that retirement is calling).
What I learned from Robert is that I can still incorporate my personal passions and core values into my work, without necessarily sacrificing my future.
If you are itching to learn something new yourself, join us for the next one. The NLGJA webinar series is free for members.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what can be said about the Bloomberg Businessweek cover, The Great American Housing Rebound? It’s insensitive and ignorant. It stereotypes. Discriminates. Demonizes. Scapegoats. And it’s misleading.
Faces of color are cast as caricatures and the greedy benefactors of the housing crisis — when the truth is that Latinos were disproportionately the victims. With the United States’ economic crisis far from over, the magazine’s cover feeds ignorant fears that Latinos are to blame for the nation’s problems. This leads to feelings of resentment that can act to incite violence and hatred against Latinos, which is what has been happening when it comes to issues of immigration in this country. All this for a story in which race and ethnicity are not factors and are not even mentioned.
The truth is that Latino and African American homeowners and borrowers were more likely to be the victims of unscrupulous banks and mortgage companies. Wells Fargo had to pay $175 million for participating in predatory lending practices against people of color. Bank of America/Countrywide paid $335 millionfor similar tactics.
Bloomberg Businessweek’s cover also raises questions: Why didn’t anyone see that this cover was a problem? Where were the safeguards to make sure this kind of thing did not happen?
Josh Tyrangiel, Bloomberg Businessweek’s editor, has apologized, saying, “Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we’d do it differently.”
That’s a start.
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) offers its assistance to Mr. Tyrangiel. NAHJ extends its hand to Bloomberg Businessweek to help in meeting their commitment to excellence in journalism, championing diversity and the fair portrayal of Latinos.
Hugo Balta
President, NAHJ
Hugo Balta is a the President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a Coordinating Producer for ESPN. This blog post was originally published on the NAHJ Website.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage. Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013 LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on various issues so they we might report on them with more authority. Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and international rights.
The absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at #LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner, who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table, can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
Thanks for watching, and please be well.
Mark
Mark S. King is an activist, author and blogger. This blog post was originally published on his blog My Fabulous Disease.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close. – See
more at:
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
The turning point could be traced to August of 1998. It was the month that, for the first time in well over a decade, the Bay Area Reporter
did not have a single AIDS obituary submitted for publication. The
promise of protease inhibitor medications had been realized, and it felt
for many that our long community nightmare was coming to a close.
The milestone in the life of San Francisco’s LGBT newspaper was
celebrated around the country and became a media story unto itself. “AIDS Deaths Take Holiday,” trumpeted the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “For Once, No AIDS,” said the Wilmington Morning Star. The headline in the Spokesman Review assured us that “No News is Good News.” The Bay Area Reporter’s own front page carried two words in enormous type: “No Obits.”
That could be seen as the moment in which coverage of HIV in gay media began to fade.
Today, the LGBT community is celebrating other milestones with joyful
regularity. The right to serve openly in the military. Marriage.
Growing acceptance and political muscle.
HIV/AIDS has largely moved off the front page and out of public
consciousness. Despite newsworthy data such as increased HIV
transmission among gay men and the ongoing slaughter of gay black men in
particular, those stories feel stale. It has all been said so many
times before. Even new storylines, such as Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, cure research advocacy, and tools on the horizon such as rectal microbicides, it’s become harder to capture the imagination or interest of the gay community. When new data was reported
recently showing that half of the 20-year-old gay men today will have
HIV by the time they’re 50 (and if they’re black, that figure rises to a
whopping 70 percent), the news barely rated a tweet or newspaper item.
What, then, is the responsibility of LGBT media in this climate of
rising infection rates and a bored readership? Are they simply
reflecting the community’s waning interest, or do they have a
responsibility to keep HIV in the headlines, to serve as advocates for
better public awareness?
I was just in the perfect place to ask these questions: The 2013
LGBT Media Journalists Convening, held in Philadelphia and sponsored by
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.
About 100 media professionals, including a healthy dose of bloggers
like myself, attended the event, which educates LGBT journalists on
various issues so they we might report on them with more authority.
Those issues this year were transgenders, immigration, aging, labor, and
international rights.
The
absence of HIV/AIDS wasn’t lost on me, I assure you (AIDS activists
called them out about this in real time in the event’s Twitter feed at
#LGBTmedia13) and it became the topic of my interviews with various
people in attendance. Their very personal answers – and undeniable
passion for the cause of HIV in many cases – sure made it a little
easier to understand the tough choices they are making every day. I
will be very interested in your reaction.
Aside from my griping over HIV coverage, it really was terrific to be
in the company of a lot of dedicated journalists, and I appreciate very
much the work done to mount the event, including the contributions of
Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (pictured with me above, at right).
Is sparse HIV coverage just a sign of the times? Is it progress? And what can we do to increase visibility again?
The journalists in my video provide some answers, but I especially liked the observation by gay political activist David Mixner,
who reminded me that coming out, whether as gay men or as someone
living with HIV, is the greatest tool in fighting stigma and helping
people see the importance of the issue. I’m glad I have some company in
the poz blogosphere, but we can always use more voices. Anyone who has
the ability to share their story, online or across the dinner table,
can make an awesome contribution.
Meanwhile, I’m going to keep nudging my LGBT media colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same.
LANSING - The conversation went something like this:
