Gay Media | GLAAD | News

BigGayDeal.com

GLAAD Changes Course, Opens its Awards to Gay Media

Last spring, media watchdog GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) came under criticism for its policy barring gay media outlets from submitting work for consideration in the annual GLAAD awards.

GlaadawardsIn a letter to the organization, Here! Networks' Stephen Macias said: "We believe that all gay media companies should be allowed to submit work for consideration. That collective group of LGBT voices in print and online journalism, radio, television, Telco, podcasts, and videocasts are quite literally changing the world. The New Gay Media has grown, matured and in many cases is taking the lead on groundbreaking points of view, yet GLAAD remains entrenched in old 'mainstream' thinking."

GLAAD recently announced the dates for the four media awards ceremonies taking place in 2008, as well as changes that have been made in policies regarding the awards:

"Effective immediately, GLAAD is opening its call for entries and will be accepting submissions for the GLAAD Media Awards on a year-round basis from this point forward. The second change enacted at the Board’s June 2007 meeting is the decision that LGBT media images appearing in media created by and for the LGBT community are now eligible to compete for nomination in the existing categories."

The Huffington Post's Gabriel Rotello adds: "GLAAD's president Neil Giuliano told me his group will accept these submissions in the existing categories, inviting the gay media to compete head-on with the mainstream media rather than in some 'gays-only' category. That's as it should be. The LGBT media have come of age. When it comes to covering the wide spectrum of gay life, gay outlets can, and do, compete with the mainstream media in the breadth of their coverage and programming. They also struggle, and often succeed, in competing with the mainstream media in terms of excellence, despite having a lot less money."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. This is doubtless the result of LOGO giving the HRC a berth for that Hillary Hootenanny.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 13, 2007 5:37:52 PM


  2. Gabriel Rotello has topped his own previous heights of stupidity and GLAAD has only become more SAAD!

    One would have no problem with separate categories, e.g., Best LGBT-Produced Film, but deconstruct the organization's title, folks. Memo to Macias: I know it's acceptable, even popular, to know nothing about where we came from, but try to pay attention: it's the [G]ay & [L]esbian [A]lliance [A]GAINST [D]EFAMATION not the frigging Lady Bunny Awards. Nota Bene: their mission statement is, "GLAAD is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation."

    Last I heard, here! TV was a GAYYYYYYYYYY network, who should already be "ensuring fair [and] accurate" material about us. And were I they, I would be afraid that none of the programs produced by said network would make the cut because so many are cliched crap. Would they seriously have put "Dante's Cove" up against "Brokeback Mountain"? Oh, I forgot, Reichen is a part of the cast now. Silly me.

    Neil Giuliano: RESIGN before you make SAAD an even bigger impotent laughing stock than it already is. Rotello and Macias: go fuck yourselves!

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 13, 2007 6:25:19 PM


  3. What about us?

    GLAAD loves us!

    Posted by: Chuck & Larry | Aug 13, 2007 6:56:56 PM


  4. Let me get this straight (no pun intended). A gay & lesbian organization whose purpose is to discourage defamation and discrimination was discriminating against media outlets because they were too gay?

    The levels of irony are mindblowing.

    Posted by: Marc | Aug 13, 2007 11:31:39 PM


  5. Why does Glaad still exist?

    They are completely useless and i am sick of looking at Neil Giuliano on TV when he FINALLY manages to comment on a story (Isaiah Washington) and he's not even attractive!

    Am i alone in wanting Glaad to disappear?

    Posted by: stephen | Aug 14, 2007 7:06:29 AM


  6. Maybe if more people simply ignored them they WOULD go away. I've never understood how the creative folk in Hollyood can give them a minute to make their pitch, let alone sign them on as approvers/"advisors" of creative work. How dare they presume to speak for all gays and lesbians everywhere in going after anyone in a censorial way! People laugh when folks like Rev. Sharpton elbow their way into things to pass judgment on projects as they're created, yet accept GLAD doing the same thing. Shame on them, for they make all the other censorship efforts seem legit, or at least gay people look like whiners. They're enemies of freedom of speech, at the very least. (Just like Hillary, who wants to make television safe for children, and whose husband signed on to censorship on the internet. Ugh! To think that we New Yorkers, who mostly breathe free air, might have to vote for her Methodist Majesty -- yet again -- as the lesser of two evils!)

    Posted by: Cookie | Aug 15, 2007 5:44:42 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #160« «