11/04/2009
Former Editor-in-Chief Judy Wieder Rips The Advocate, Regent
Is it a case of sour grapes or sound advice? Probably some of both in this rant from former Advocate editorial director Judy Wieder, who is writing a memoir (is this a preview?) about her experiences at the magazine. Wieder rips into Regent Media's management and OUT's editor Aaron Hicklin (though she can't seem to decide on the spelling of his name — Hickman, Hicklan?) over the current state of The Advocate in a Huffington Post piece:
"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 does not mince words over its content:
"Am I to assume that younger LGBTs today simply had no interest in reading about the significance of Adam Lambert soaring his way through American Idol ? Or later learning from the one-time only must-read publication in the community what it was like for him in an exclusive interview? They'd rather pick up Details and watch him making out and posing with women? Pleeeeeease! Just shoot me! I don't believe it. Or what about Ricky Martin and his children? Where's the story behind this, the interview? Where's The Advocate? I'll tell you where: "Straight Guys Tell," that's their latest cover story. It's all about what straight men think of gay men. 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."
And at how its sale to Regent was handled:
"With its harsh features and photos that no advertiser wanted to be anywhere near, the magazine depended on dedicated readers that renewed their costly ($40+) subscriptions year after year. For them to do this, the content had to be astonishing. It was unimaginably difficult for a small staff to keep it up every two weeks, but somehow it happened. Then it was sold for something like 32 million dollars to PlanetOut who threw its wrecking ball at The Advocate (ripping off its content and putting it on Gay.com; spending no money on the magazine's website, and diminishing the value of its subs by offering them cheap with Gay.com memberships). Through the less than two years it took PNO to diminish the worth of LPI Media from 32 mil to 6 mil (approximate numbers), only Out pulled through in decent shape...At the time Regent Media bought this horrific mess, it's CEO, Paul Colichman called me in to discuss what if any 'role' I could have in his company, I was completely ambivalent. I declined to step in an take over the EIC role currently held by the second woman to achieve that status because frankly I didn't want to be associated with what they were about to do to her..."
What Killed the Advocate? [huffington post]
(note: I worked for Judy Wieder for a brief period at Out Traveler prior to the creation of this blog)
Posted 7:58 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Media, Magazines, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I was just reading this issue yesterday and thinking what a piece of crap The Advocate has become. I keep getting them for some reason though I never renewed. Same with Out, Genre, etc - very happy to see those subscriptions end. I think I was actually dumber and more shallow after having read one of the rags.
Posted by: andy | Nov 4, 2009 8:19:13 AM
Her example of biting, hard news of interest to the gay community is *Adam Lambert*?!?! I mean, seriously?
Posted by: Andrew | Nov 4, 2009 8:47:52 AM
What straight guys think of gays? No, it was about the concerns that have been voiced in the public debate over gays and lesbians serving in the military. Time and time again, we hear how that would impact straights in the military. Congratulations to the Advocate for addressing this head on - something other magazines have not done. I would think that DADT is a bit more important than Ricky Martin, but perhaps Weider feels that gay=entertainment.
Posted by: ikahana | Nov 4, 2009 8:51:22 AM
Her essay is worth a read if anyone's on the fence about it. However, it also could have used an editor--in addition to the randomly changing Hickman/Hicklan, there's also an "it's" for an "its." The irony.
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 4, 2009 8:58:39 AM
It would be nice if the Advocate was still addressing important issues for the community but that era is gone. I wouldn't read any of it if it contained the latest puff piece on manufactured personalities like teen-idol of the second- Adam or Ricky Martin and his children. If I wanted to read about them-I would go on an entertainment blog online for 2 seconds and catch up on the life-changing impact they have on their "fans".
Posted by: Nick | Nov 4, 2009 9:04:58 AM
Weider makes some good points but she misses the main reasons why the Advocate jumped the shark.
1. The economy, stupid. As the Advocate started hemmoraging money, the editors etc. started becoming more desperate, trying ill-conceived features (even commercially-sponsored content). And advertisers pulled back on ads.
2. The Internet. Weider wonders why the Advocate doesnt have the relevance it did a decade ago. Wow, is she in denail or really that clueless. With the advent of bloggers, gays and lesbians don't have to wait two weeks (or a month) for news. Yes, the Advocate.com posted daily, but even it was behind-the-times compared to sites like Queerty or Towleroad.
3. The assimilation/mainstreaming of LGBT culture. I can read about LGBT issues in the NY Times, CNN and other mainstream sources, so the need to have a niche publication is less important. Its the same reason why gay bookstores are faltering.
In a sense, these three issues are insurmountable and inevitable. But Weider is being disengenous if she doesnt admit they were at the root of the Advocate's demise.
Posted by: dizzy spins | Nov 4, 2009 9:16:49 AM
I remember being so happy be a young gay 20 something in the late 80s and getting advocate. I finally had a connection to the gay world.
As Dizzy pointed out I can have a connection the gay world by logging onto the internet, or turning on the television.
I was actually excited when the Advocate moved from 2 weeks to monthly. I thought okay they have recognized they no longer need to do current events because that can be done online. Instead they are going to do more and in depth new magazine focusing in on the issues more in depth. But I was wrong.
I agree that they devalued their magazine byt the free giveways on gay.com and printing things there.
I don't know if advocate can survive. They need to look out and see what isn't being done or done well and try to deliver that.
Posted by: kujhawker | Nov 4, 2009 9:24:05 AM
I mostly agree with her, proofreader be damned. Also, to Andrew: She wasn't saying that. She was saying that any argument that young people wouldn't be interested in this venerable title could be shot down because there are plenty of very young, very commercial ideas out there that are nonetheless important to gay people.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Nov 4, 2009 9:43:00 AM
Then Funny thing that Judy Weider fails to mention is that The Advocate was "funded" and kept financially viable for years by the ADULT EROTIC publications [(Advocate) MEN, FRESHMEN, & UNZIPPED] and porn video/adult toys distribution company it owned, prior to its' merger with OUT magazine. That was the money source, ...and I am sure under current owner, regent Media is probably still a significant money source.... This seems to me that Judy is either pushing hard to get exposure for book deal, or PR for such, or she is just upset that something she viewed as a "child" has grown up into something other than what she wanted it to be.
Posted by: Doug | Nov 4, 2009 10:01:47 AM
Bitter, table for one. The editorial mishaps of her rantings speak volumes.
Posted by: Jamey | Nov 4, 2009 10:37:21 AM
I'm old-enough to remember when the Advocate was newspaper-printed and the entire center-section was sex-ads, escorts and porno ads. It then morphed into the gay communiy's paper then magazine-of-record. The problem was always that while the editorial content was compelling, the advertising base and the photo spreads were too-homoerotic to be read in a public place...or to be received in the mail. It wasn't the homosexual-context...it was the blatantly homoerotic content; the twink photoshoots, the partial-nudity masquerading as "fashion", the sex ads and the sex-toy ads, etc.
They tried to be TIME or NEWSWEEK magazine and PLAYGIRL at the same time.
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Nov 4, 2009 10:50:53 AM
The Advocate has an editor in chief, it doesn't need an editorial director, and certainly not Wieder, whose idea of a good cover was Melissa Etheridge. The Advocate has been a better read this year than in a long, long time.
Posted by: Doug | Nov 4, 2009 11:03:50 AM
It all became too mundane. being Gay is much more than 12 year olds in over priced clothes. How about things like financial planning, wills, buying a house, Power of attorneys, etc. As a 40 something man in an 11 year relationship, we have a lot more to think about.
I truly would love to see a magazine that can speak to gay men and women of a certain age who need/have real life issues and needs. At a certain point, we all age and with that aging comes a different set of priorities. Particularly as the general population is living longer. I would much prefer to see how my contemporaries are doing, than say adam Lambert.
Posted by: HA! | Nov 4, 2009 11:12:30 AM
I don't ever remember a time when the Advocate was timely, informative, provacative or a leader for mainstream media. If you lived in a city of any decent size the weekly gay newspaper was better writen and more informative than the Advocate.
Posted by: Brian | Nov 4, 2009 11:17:20 AM
God but our "community" is rife with stereotypes: here we have the bitter lesbian. Of course, as editorial director, she had NO PART in what happened to the Advocate...
Sorry, but she lost me at the point she, an ex-editorial director, used "OMG." It's bad enough that she used it at all, but to consider it a complete SENTENCE? I'd venture a guess that leadership like this was a part of what touched off the mag's downward spiral. I remember being excited enough to spring for a subscription when I got the mailer which promised that, by going to a monthly format, the Advocate would give us more serious, in-depth reporting (which the mailer claimed wasn't possible with bi-weekly deadlines). Never happened. Or perhaps it's just my pre-conception of what IN-DEPTH implies. Regardless, didn't hit the mark. I now save up the issues, along with out (will that subscription NEVER end??) to use as flip-through entertainment while sunning or on a long car trip.
Posted by: Jim | Nov 4, 2009 11:18:32 AM
TedB - you are so right. Those ads also made sure that Lesbians had no interest in the publication as well.
The Advocate lost it at least 10 years ago, and will never recover as the Internet is the driving force that keeps information flowing, and no gay dot com or similar site featuring the Adam Lamberts of the world will ever succeed in being a community voice.
Posted by: carter | Nov 4, 2009 11:19:06 AM
Oh, Judy, honey, you were "let go" from the mags a while ago now, can't you get over it and move on? It was exactly this bitterness that made you such a monster to work with back then.
Posted by: hamshank | Nov 4, 2009 11:40:23 AM
i remember, in the 90s, picking up an issue of the advocate and, after reading through it, realizing that there was very, very little in there that i wouldn't have been able to find in one of the rags i could pick up in the bar for free.
Posted by: alguien | Nov 4, 2009 12:03:19 PM
I love her tirade about the Advocate putting straight people on the cover. It seems like she forgets that she put lots of straight celebrities on the cover herself, in her role as Editor. As for the timeliness of her tirade, she writes, "I refuse to get into another deadening debate about print media vs online, blah, blah, snore. That's distracting, designed to send you flying wildly past the point." Seems like she avoids and misses the point altogether. We live in a new world where Perez Hilton and Towleroad "publish" information they determine is newsworthy to an LGBT audience. We are no longer in a world where AIDS is at the core of our community. We out everyone before the person in question has a chance to address it, and that gets more media attention than real news. And we live in a world where people write things like "The passivity of the Obama administration regarding LGBT issues, the apparently missing sense of urgency within the LGBT community and its so called "leadership organizations" , is especially frustrating today" as their Facebook updates, yet they don't do anything about it but complain.
Posted by: BitterPartyofOne | Nov 4, 2009 12:15:01 PM
These publications existed on sex ads and hookups for years. Why turn to gay.com when you have a gazillion other sites to get entertainment news? And if you ever visited planetout for any length of time, you knew that there was trouble at the very top...a few people were making bucks and shuffling papers and not much else..
Posted by: bryan | Nov 4, 2009 12:33:26 PM
I like Judy a lot but I think she misses a lot of marks. I agree with everything Dizzy said and to back up BITTERPARTYOFONE, I remember when Judy first came over to The Advocate as Entertainment Editor. Her "coup" walking in the door was an interview with Marky Mark, who then appeared shirtless on the cover. How that is superior to a straight member of Congress fighting for our rights is really beyond me. Yes, PlanetOut ran the magazine and itself into the ground. As a former employee and shareholder, I am extremely bitter that our first major gay company turned out to be just another coporate get-rich-quick scheme for all those involved at the top (which Judy surely received benefit from as well). When LPI was sold to PlanetOut it wasn't for more editorial control or lofty goals, it was for greed, pure and simple. Well, they all made money and now the bag is empty. Boo hoo. What did everyone think was going to happen?
Posted by: Derek Hartley | Nov 4, 2009 12:54:47 PM
She may not have the restraint or sense to recognize the need for an editor, but the Huffington Post should have. What a pointless, childish mess.
Posted by: Paul R | Nov 4, 2009 1:10:40 PM
uh...the Advocate has always sucked and has never lived up to the descriptions of its own importance by editors past or present. What mag is she talking about?
Posted by: phlll illl | Nov 4, 2009 1:38:20 PM
"And I refuse to get into another deadening debate about print media vs. online." Sounds like train industry exec in the 1950's saying "I refuse to get into another deadening debate about rail travel versus air travel. If the food is good on the trains, the people will come." Judy, you're a dinosaur.
Posted by: Billy LaPoint | Nov 4, 2009 1:54:58 PM
Wow, I'm kind of appalled at the venom being spewed at Ms. Weider. You're all missing the point, which is that the Advocate has now basically folded. It's becoming an insert in OUT, and we'll see how long that lasts! When Weider was in charge, it didn't fail. Now it has failed. I appreciate hearing her perspective on the reasons why, and I understand her anger at the way it was obviously mismanaged. An editor at OUT told me not long ago that even internally they considered the Advocate "eating your veggies"... i.e. it's good for you but not really enjoyable. Well, I think if someone as passionate and intelligent as Weider were still in charge, perhaps it wouldn't have to be that way.
Posted by: Andrew | Nov 4, 2009 2:23:00 PM