Press Pass Q: Here Media Filed Lawsuit Against Queerty

The new edition of Press Pass Q has an interesting story on the problems at Here Media (or Regent Media, more on that later) and includes a great scoop: Here filed a lawsuit in February–which has now been withdrawn–against Queerty over the website’s intense coverage of the media company.

Here Media’s 10-page complaint alleged unfair competition, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective advantage. The plaintiffs were asking the court for recovery of damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and costs.

. . .
According to the complaint, “Even more egregiously, the defendants have publicly targeted, attacked, and heaped scorn upon employees of Here Media who have worked selflessly and diligently to provide a legitimate voice for LGBT issues – people who have been exemplary in their efforts and who deserve to be treated with consideration and respect – in an effort to make it intolerable for those valuable employees to continue working with Here Media and to pressure them into abandoning their employment with Here Media so that defendants’ attacks against them will cease. As a result, some of Here Media’s employees have resigned and vendors, advertisers, and contributors have ended their relationships with Here Media.”

Chuck Colbert’s story for Press Pass Q details the other complaints against Queerty, including an allegation that Queerty’s founder was shopping around Queerty in 2008 to Here’s CEO. According to the story, the lawsuit was dropped in March.

The edition also explains the confusion over whether it is Regent Media–or Here Media–that owns the Advocate and Out.

“Here Media Inc. does not have a parent company,” Here Media said in a statement to Press Pass Q. “It is owned by 100 shareholders. Here Media Inc. was organized in 2009 and merged with Planet Out Inc. in June 2009. It owns The Advocate, Out, Gay.com, SheWired.com and other media properties serving the LGBT audience. One of its subsidiaries was briefly named Regent Entertainment Media Inc., but was renamed Here Publishing Inc. shortly after the merger. Here Media Inc. has over 100 shareholders, including many individual and institutional investors together with management.”

Two examples of using gay sources for non-LGBT specific stories

When I speak to student journalists or professional mainstream news rooms about covering the LGBT community, one of the points I like to make is that LGBT people can be sources for stories that are not LGBT-specific.

It is what us in the LGBT press call finding the “gayngle,” or gay angle, to a national or local news story. In a city like San Francisco, it is relatively easy to find LGBT people involved in almost any kind of story to interview.

Recent examples from my paper, the Bay Area Reporter, include an online column I wrote about new transit maps or a spin on the growing self-publishing trend among authors in this article a colleague wrote about two gay men who wrote children’s books. (Full disclosure: one of them is my partner.)

So I was pleasantly surprised to see two examples of this crop up in the New York Times over the last several days. In one instance the source’s sexual orientation became a part of the story but was not the reason the person was profiled.

In the second, a gay couple was never quoted by the article authors. But their photo was used to illustrate a census story.

The latter example isn’t as rare as one would think. I recall an Associated Press story a former roommate of mine wrote about housing loans and a local paper ran a gay male couple’s photo but cut any mention of them out of the actual article (apparently due to space constraints).

Nonetheless, it was still a bit jarring to see the Times pick a photo of a gay male African American couple to use with a story in Friday’s edition about Northeast blacks relocating to the South.

Nowhere in the article are migration patterns of LGBT black people discussed. And how the men are identified in the photo caption is pretty nonchalant: “Tuan N’Gai, left, and his partner, Erin Kelly, recently moved to the Atlanta area from Washington, D.C.”

I wondered if perhaps they were cut out of the print edition version and part of the online story. But I checked and the two men are never quoted on the Times’ website. It would have been great if the writers could have included something about the reason behind the gay couple’s move.

But the fact they didn’t and the photo editors went ahead and used a picture of two gay men to go with the story sends a powerful message that LGBT people are a part of the African American community, even if they are often ignored or made to feel they should remain closeted.

It is a visual example of the LGBT community’s boast that “We are everywhere,” and thus, can be a part of any news story.

Another example was Sunday’s profile of California budget director Ana Matosantos. It isn’t until deep within the article – paragraph 20 to be precise – that the reader learns not only is Matosantos a lesbian but also that last year’s drawn out budget battle nearly made her miss her commitment ceremony to her partner.

It was a a cute anecdote that caught me off guard, as until then the article’s focus had zeroed in on Matosantos’ mastery of the Golden State’s budget numbers and her interactions with state lawmakers.

In both instances the subjects’ sexual orientation is seemingly irrelevant to the topic laid out in the lead of both stories. But I am glad it is included because the Times gives readers a fuller picture of the LGBT community and doesn’t silo out sources to only discussing LGBT-specific issues.

Equality Matters Takes on Chick-Fil-A

Equality Matters, the gay rights focused effort of Media Matters for America, has issued its first big investigative piece which is a look at the depth of Chick-Fil-A’s ties to “anti-gay causes.”  It’s a promising effort and shows why outlets like Equality Matters can be a source of analysis and research on LGBT-rights issues.

There has been some grumbling that Equality Matters has limped through its debut without making much of an impression, but the research on Chick-Fil-A indicates that the group is interested in doing some good leg-work, even if it isn’t the kind of reporting that you’d expect from more traditional sources.

Here’s the lead to their report:

When two Missouri organizations, the Clayton Chamber of Commerce and FOCUS St. Louis, decided earlier this month to cancel a presentation by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy over his company’s controversial affiliations, they made the right decision. Although Cathy has unequivocally denied being anti-LGBT and claimed that he and the company have “no agenda against anyone” and “will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family,” Equality Matters research proves just the opposite. In fact, the company has strong, deep ties to anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and its charitable division has provided more than $1.1 million to organizations that deliver anti-LGBT messages and promote egregious practices like reparative therapy that seek to “free” people of being gay.

The research shows that Chick-Fil-A is a major donor to Christian organizations, as well as “pro-family” groups. The two largest recipients of Chick-Fil-A’s money–through its foundation Winshape–is the National Christian Foundation and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Neither is mainly funding “anti-gay” activities, although EM connects them with the “anti-gay” movement. There are much smaller donations to organizations that are involved opposing gay rights and opposing same-sex marriage.

One of the nice things about the research is that it gives links to primary source documents so that users can make their own decisions about the research and do more investigation. This is an invaluable source. Let’s hope EM continues to do similar work, which can be helpful to researchers and journalists.

New York Times profile on state Senator Carl Kruger avoids the word gay

Am I the only one who read the New York Times’ piece on the secret life of state Senator Carl Kruger in Sunday’s paper who was confused as to why the nearly 3,000 word article not once used the word ‘gay?”

Instead, the story seems to have done everything it could to avoid it, leaving me more baffled than educated on whether the online reports I had seen about Kruger  being a closeted gay Empire State lawmaker were incorrect.

First a little back story. This month news broke that Kruger was among 8 men accused of running a bribery racket. The revelation also brought forward what many had only whispered about beforehand, the rumors that Kruger was in fact gay and living with his boyfriend. The New York Post summed up the scandal on its front page with the subhead: “Pol, secret gay lover arrested.”

But were they really lovers? It seems there isn’t much to substantiate the claim. Tom McGeveran did a great job of breaking down the error in the tabloid’s coverage in a piece on CapitolNewYork.com:

This piece has a triple byline, plus a “shirttail” naming five additional reporters; and here we’ve got them trying to get someone on the inside of the investigation to say they discovered the two were lovers during the course of the investigation. They don’t get it, in fact—not even from an anonymous source.

Being that I am on the West Coast and hadn’t really followed the coverage of this case closely, I was interested in reading the Times’ long Sunday piece on Kruger. But much to my surprise, the reporters never once use the word gay or homosexual.

Instead, the article uses a bunch of other adjectives to describe the two men’s relationship. Here is how the story introduces the family that Kruger’s relations with have raised questions:

The house is owned by two never-married middle-aged brothers, Drs. Michael S. and Gerard I. Turano, gynecologists whose 39-foot yacht, Special Delivery, is often docked out back. They live there with their mother, Dorothy, 73, a Brooklyn native who manages the local community board.

Further on it states this about the “gossip and speculation” long swirling around the foursome:

For more than 25 years, Mr. Kruger and the Turanos of Mill Basin have forged the most unconventional of domestic arrangements — at once public and opaque, widely whispered about and poorly understood.

The Turanos are variously described by friends, neighbors and colleagues as the senator’s social acquaintances, lovers or surrogate relatives.

It then says that the older Turano, Michael, considered Kruger his “best friend” and that Kruger called the Turanos “his family.”

But the following paragraph seems to imply the two men were lovers:

(A process server testified that he saw Mr. Kruger at the Bassett Avenue home, on several occasions, “in his pajamas coming out of a bedroom.”)

Whose bedroom he was really coming from isn’t made clear, but the impression given is it was of Michael Turano. Adding further confusion is this graph:

Investigators, who tapped the senator’s cellphone for months, have both muddied and clarified the situation, suggesting that Mr. Kruger, 61, had his most intimate relationship with Michael, 49, picking him up at the office and fielding phone calls from him throughout the day. “Kruger spoke with Michael Turano,” court records say, “in a manner that revealed that they relied on and supported one another.”

yet what made the relationship “intimate” is never fully explained. Then there is this strange phrasing a reporter used with the mother:

But when asked whether Mr. Kruger was a close friend of her son, Ms. Turano, through the security intercom at her front door, said: “He was my friend. That’s why I don’t understand about this. Whatever comes out is going to be so wrong.”

Why not just come out and ask if Turano and Kruger was lovers? boyfriends? partners? or gay?

Using the term “close friend,” while it implies a sexual relationship, is pretty opaque. Certainly men can have close friendships that have nothing to do with sex. Plus it seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for the mother to obfuscate the truth, if indeed the two men are gay.

Nor is it clear what she really means when she says the lawmaker is “my friend.” Again, this appears to mean they were lovers but is an odd way to state it. Why not call him your boyfriend?

The reporters even tracked down the two Turanos’ biological father, and it would seem logical they would ask him if Michael was gay. Yet if they did, that exchange is not included in the article.

What is is his calling his ex-wife’s relationship with Kruger “more motherly” than romantic. This only added to the nagging question I kept having as I read the story so is Kruger then gay?

Even more curious is the fact that in an earlier story, which I only read while researching for this post, the Times did address the gay rumors head on and included a denial from Kruger:

He has also faced unusually intense criticism from gay rights activists for his 2009 vote against a Senate bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Activists traveled last year to the Turano residence and the Brooklyn home of Mr. Kruger’s sister, protesting loudly and saying Mr. Kruger himself was gay. Mr. Kruger has said he is not gay.

Why that wasn’t included in this past Sunday’s story only leaves me with even m0re questions than answers.

Why the Regent Media Problems Matter

The other day, I was waiting to see one of my dentists (yes, I’m at the point where I have lots of dental professionals) and I picked up a copy of The Advocate sitting in the magazine rack. While I read the magazine’s website, it had been awhile since I’d actually seen the magazine.  I was struck by two things: (1) how really thin it was and (2) what a really great magazine it is to look at and read.

As a college student in the early 1980s, I used to go to a headshop in Columbia, Missouri and buy the Advocate. For a kid in the closet, the magazine provided a view to the gay life that was I so curious about.  It’s where I first learned about AIDS, about the gay civil rights movement during the 1980s, about LGBT literature, and about a coterie of writers and activists who would influence the next few decades.

So the news of continuing problems at Regent Media, which owns the Advocate and Out are troubling both from a journalism perspective and to the larger LGBT community. Big banks are alleging the company bilked the banks for $90 million by cooking the books relating to Regent’s film business.  The company, which also owns Here! television, is the biggest player in LGBT media even after gutting most of its adult titles and the fall of Alyson Publishing.

Given the company’s reputation for not paying freelancers and angering employees, the blogs have been full of schadenfreude-laced stories noting the problems at the beleaguered company. But underneath the chatter is a larger question about the fate of the two largest national LGBT magazines.  While Out and the Advocate have been rescued from the ruins before, that was in a very different media climate.

Listen, I know the criticisms of the magazines.  Too celebrity focused, too much skin, too much emphasis on white gay men, too many straight people on the cover. I’ve read the criticisms of The Advocate’s columnists being too conservative and inappropriate. I mean, would any other venerable magazine turn over its columns to a porn producer pushing his anti-Muslim/pro-Israel agenda?

But national magazines are important. They are places where long-form journalism can still take place.  Take a look at Andrew Harmon’s profile of Ted Haggard and you understand how rare those kinds of stories are in the LGBT press.  Or take Obama’s first interview with the LGBT press.  There’s a reason the White House chose the Advocate. Or even look at the Power lists created by Out, which makes news and pushes the boundaries of who we consider “gay” (although, in a sign of the problems at Regent, the famous Michael Musto “Glass Closets” article can’t be accessed). They are also beautiful magazines to look at, with award-winning designs and covers.

Now, I love local LGBT newspapers a lot.  And I can’t get enough of LGBT-focused blogs and online journalism.  But, for me, they still don’t have the significance of national magazines that moved from headshops in college towns to Barnes & Noble. Having a national voice–and platform–for LGBT media is important, even as the coverage of LGBT lives has increased in the traditional media.

So I’m not ready to dance on Regent Media’s grave quite yet and I don’t take any joy in the problems at The Advocate and Out.  They are part of our media history and we should be fighting to keep them alive.