Film | GLAAD | News

GLAAD Responds to Questions Over Outrage Award 'Snub'

Following the announcement of the GLAAD awards this week, many were perplexed over what appeared to be a snub of one of the best gay films of the year — Kirby Dick's Outrage, a documentary exposing hypocritical, closet politicians.

Outrage Among those questioning it, Movieline said GLAAD delivered Kirby Dick's "very brave, very necessary" film "a final insult" by snubbing it. Indiewire wondered why it had been ignored.

Blogger Mike Rogers, whose work outing said politicians is among the focuses of the film, received a statement from GLAAD about why the film wasn't included in its nominations:

The GLAAD Media Awards are about elevating and promoting the fair, accurate and inclusive stories of LGBT issues, people and allies that have increased awareness, understanding and respect for our lives and our pursuit of equality.

Outrage is a fine movie and an important one that focused attention on anti-LGBT politicians whose efforts put our community and our families in harm’s way. But the GLAAD Media Awards aren't the Academy Awards, they are about highlighting media that move America by telling the stories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - not those who run from who they are.

The decision to come out as LGBT is an extremely personal one that benefits the individual and the people who know them. While there is certainly an argument that is made for speculating on the sexual orientation of anti-LGBT politicians in an effort to hold them accountable for the harms they inflict on our community, that sort of speculation doesn't promote awareness, understanding and respect for our lives and thus does not fit the criteria for the GLAAD Media Awards.

Michelangelo Signorile, who has been critical of the Outrage snub on his show and on Twitter (he said that HBO did submit Outrage to GLAAD for an award), is going to have filmmaker Kirby Dick on his show at 4:30 today. No doubt he'll be asked about it.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Perhaps GLAAD will someday discover that stories of non-out gays, and the reasons why they are not out, are just as important as the stories of those who are out. Perhaps more so if they are in a position to create laws which restrict or elevate certain segments of our society.

    Posted by: Fred | Jan 15, 2010 2:48:09 PM


  2. glaad's a joke.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 15, 2010 2:50:09 PM


  3. This disgusts me. Boo GLAAD!

    Posted by: Cameron Johnson | Jan 15, 2010 2:54:31 PM


  4. GLAAD argues that the speculation in the movie Outrage doesn't promote awareness, understanding and respect for our lives and thus does not fit the criteria for the GLAAD Media Awards. I absolutely, fundamentally and wholeheartedly disagree. It is not a surprise that many people who are strongly homophobic are themselves gay and suffer from internalized homophobia, and we must raise awareness of the danger that arises from the unchecked manifestation of internalized homophobia that accelerates with the discovery of one's own homosexuality. This movie clearly compels its audience of this danger. We should respect the imperfection of humanity that includes this temptation to succumb to this encompassing internalized homophobia, and this movie pays sincere homage to this imperfection. I would like to better understand how GLAAD sees this movie as not promoting awareness, understanding and respect for our lives. Apologists rarely succeed against oppression if ever.

    Posted by: SFNative | Jan 15, 2010 2:56:10 PM


  5. It almost seems like they are self-sabotaging at this point. I mean, really?

    Posted by: Jon B | Jan 15, 2010 2:57:38 PM


  6. When was the last time GLAAD was even remotely relevant in the media landscape? 1998, maybe? Who cares about them? Outrage is a powerful film that speaks for itself, regardless of GLAAD's thoughts on its GLAAD-worthiness.

    Posted by: henry | Jan 15, 2010 3:03:40 PM


  7. OMFG, the entire reason for "Outrage" is because closeted anti-gay politicians adopt policies the DEFAME our community...

    I thought that this was the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against DEFAMATION...

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Jan 15, 2010 3:08:44 PM


  8. GLAAD doesn't want to offend the people in power because they might stop getting invited to nice parties. Fuck GLAAD and Gay Inc who fight for power and privilege for a select few queers while leaving the rest of us behind.

    Posted by: Lonnie | Jan 15, 2010 3:08:48 PM


  9. Translation: the film made some of the folks GLAAD likes to hobnob with mildly uncomfortable.


    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Jan 15, 2010 3:08:55 PM


  10. I would think that as media about, by and relating to us becomes more diverse, the GLAAD Media Awards should strive to broaden their focus, not restrict it on specifics.

    "they are about highlighting media that move America by telling the stories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - not those who run from who they are."

    If Outrage isn't a movie that moves America by telling the stories of gay Americans- those who run from who they are and those who make it their life's work to expose hypocrisy- I don't know what is.

    Strange move, GLAAD.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Jan 15, 2010 3:11:03 PM


  11. I was very pissed about that a few days go. Espcially since they nominated LZ Granderson for an award for an article he wrote about jocks and the use of the word "fag" in the same year that Granderson wrote an Op-Ed for CNN slamming the white gay community for comparing Gay Righst to civil rights. I recieved some very lame emails from Barrios and their Media Relations Director. They are posted over at my site. They really show just how inept and out of touch the organization is.

    http://www.back2stonewall.com/2010/01/glaad-responds-to-lz-granderson-glaad.html

    Posted by: Wolf | Jan 15, 2010 3:14:13 PM


  12. Los Angeles and Washington DC are similar in that they both have a huge closeted sub-culture. Many of GLAAD's Hollywood allies are undoubtedly closeted themselves. And this is an issue that hits a little too close to home for them.

    Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2010 3:17:41 PM


  13. It's time that we start addressing this huge closeted sub-culture, regardless how close to home this issue hits them, because closets will never help us get our civil rights.

    Posted by: SFNative | Jan 15, 2010 3:22:14 PM


  14. Any relevance GLAAD has in 2010 is being pissed away by their refusal to take a stand. I would be more angry, but they don't matter at all any more so why bother? The world has moved past them.

    Posted by: ACertainSomeone | Jan 15, 2010 3:23:34 PM


  15. The content of this film aside, resorting to outing others to further our political goals seems like a last resort tactic. Outing others, whether they harm our community or not, may seem like a popular sentiment, but it's only to our own denigration. Executing known terrorists without the benefit of a trial is also highly popular, but that doesn't make it right. The cost of giving a pass to these things is that we no longer maintain the sanctity of our beliefs. It's to say that bottom line, someone's sexual orientation is not personal, is not a sacred journey, and does not need to be universally respected.

    Does it matter if it applies to someone merely finding themselves or a closeted individual harming our community through their hypocrisy? If the answer is yes, then you might as well throw that principle out the window because you're going to have a hell of a time drawing the line between those who deserve to have their journey respected and those who deserve to be outed.

    Posted by: luminum | Jan 15, 2010 3:24:39 PM


  16. Luminum, we have been quiet for far too long, silenced, beaten and oppressed for way, way too long to respect any individual's chosen journey so perverse that it strives to destroy and humiliate the very people and movement trying to liberate it.

    WAY too long.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Jan 15, 2010 3:34:08 PM


  17. How can you compare executing people without a trial to outing a politician who does harm to our community? I fail to see the moral equivalence you're making. In one case, a person's life is being ended without being tried and convicted of any crime, and in another, a person's sexual identity is being revealed because he harms other people who share that sexual orientation. In one case, there's a a person acting outside of how he would wish to be treated by actively harming others, and in the other case, a person is being harmed without due process or the ability to defend himself. I think you're a fool, luminum.

    There simply is no argument from you. A person who beats another because he wants to should be stopped. Just because it's with words doesn't change the metric here. Further, not respecting a man in beating another for his enjoyment doesn't entail that we can't respect anyone's enjoyment ever... I repeat: you're a fool, luminum.

    Posted by: TANK | Jan 15, 2010 3:36:48 PM


  18. Besides, did you really just compare outing someone to executing a known terrorist?

    Posted by: JeffRob | Jan 15, 2010 3:38:17 PM


  19. Orwell said If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. GLAAD and HRC are right there, licking the soles clean while they caress their access hardons

    Posted by: Christopher | Jan 15, 2010 4:15:10 PM


  20. GLAAD, of course, is crying all the way to the bank. Andy and Signorile can hand out their own awards. Heck, I'll start handing out awards too if it helps.

    Posted by: anon | Jan 15, 2010 5:03:09 PM


  21. I use to be more neutral on cries of "Gay, Inc is irrelevant!" because I felt that there was some good in what these organizations did. For example, HRC's lobbying is lackluster, but their Workplace, Family, and Religion analysis & information is top notch. (Seriously, there's good stuff there.) Nevertheless, I must admit that I'm coming around to believing that they really are ineffectual power-mongers. Access is everything. Progress is secondary.

    People who bitch about outing are also now irrelevant, in my estimation. We live in a time and place where being outed for being gay or lesbian should be and is a non-issue. In moments of clear and dastardly hypocrisy, such as the actions of the politicians in the movie OUTRAGE, outing is fully 100% justified, just as would be outing a pro-life politician who participated in an abortion. Hypocrisy is relevant info for the voting public.

    Posted by: ColinATL | Jan 15, 2010 5:43:34 PM


  22. GLAAD is irrelevant now. But so is Signorile.

    Posted by: JT | Jan 15, 2010 6:47:13 PM


  23. This is so ridiculous. GLAAD should be ashamed. Outrage is a great movie, and it pissed me off to see how these hypocrites are f#cking up alot of peoples lives for their own personal gain. That is simply EVIL. That have no shame, and we should have no shame outing them!

    Posted by: Mike | Jan 15, 2010 7:18:10 PM


  24. We should dump Gay,Inc. lock, cock and barrel. These people purport to speak for us, but they really only self perpetuate. Think about it ... if we win, they are obsolete.

    They are perfectly happy to pursue incrementalism because it keeps them employed and in satin.

    GLAAD and HRC are too afraid to be radical. What we need is a queer army, not apologists. We need activists groups who are willing to lie down in the streets and demand our rights ... not people who think rights come from $150 a plate dinners and black tie cocktail receptions. They are to the gay rights movement what "bojangles" and the "minstral shows" were to the African American civil rights movement.

    Posted by: Swellster | Jan 15, 2010 7:33:55 PM


  25. GLAAD, HRC, and all those money-grubbing homo elitists can go play in traffic. They don't care about us anymore, just their status in this world. SELL OUTS.

    Posted by: Paul | Jan 15, 2010 8:42:55 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Sportrait: Juan Martin Del Potro« «