 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 25 members and 1282 guests online.
|
President of NBC Olympics on Matthew Mitcham: "We apologize for this unintentional omission."
Yesterday AfterElton.com received a statement from Gary Zenkel, President, NBC Olympics concerning his network's coverage of Matthew Mitcham's gold medal upset during the diving competition at the Beijing Olympics. Said Zenkel: "We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham's story. We apologize for this unintentional omission." If nothing else, we at least know the highest reaches of NBC Sports are aware of the issue. Hopefully, something like this won't happen again. We've given this issue a lot of coverage; too much according to some folks responding in the comments. What do you think? And what do you think of NBC's statement? Submitted by on Wed, 2008-08-27 10:10. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
ok...
in this day and age, when you offend someone AND are then called out on it.....we ALL know that people/companies, etc have no choice, but to come out and say sorry to whom they have offended.
IMO, i don't think they did this on purpose for the intention of offending anyone.....of course not.... but i really hope they learned that yes, not everyone is American...but they're all in this because they're all talented and want to represent their country the best they can...and winning Gold and kissing and hugging loved ones should be shown
plus, swimming (and diving) and gymnastics i think are the most watched events anyway... i think NBC knows that....
and as i have said before....they should try and not put so much focus on one record setting person..
I know they can't cover everyone. That's understandable....so maybe they should try and get as many stories as they can...if they can't cover these people during the games, then put together a video or something and show it on their website
The apology is nice. I just hope they have honestly learned from this.
GLAAD is prepping an award for Gary as we speak
I want to thank AE for their coverage of Matt's NBC snub. I don't think it was excessive of whiny...it was covered the first few days in full and then it was poked fun at. The comments and the readers kept it alive and on the front burner here on AE.
So...can someone explain to me exactly what we need GLAAD for?
I want to echo your
I want to echo your commendation of AE for their coverage of this issue. (Though then I'm going to disagree with something else you said!) Kudos to AE for creating an awareness at the highest level of NBC of the gay community's presence and its interest in this story. Everyone draws their own "lines" in life as to what's proper and what's excessive, what's legitimate criticism and what's whining. In my personal view, AE went right up to the edge of that line and then stopped. (In contrast, many forum posters hurtled right past that line.)
Where I want to disagree with you is regarding your comments about GLAAD. (And I don't intend this to be confrontrational, just the expression of an alternative viewpoint.) For the record, I have never been a member of GLAAD. But were I making the decisions for GLAAD I would have seen no reason to insert the organization into the Mitcham situation. I'll detail that in a moment, but in general, GLAAD covers the entire range of the gay issue in all aspects of life. AE, in contrast, specifically focuses on media. In the big scheme of gay life in America, the Mitcham/NBC situation is much more mole hill than mountain. In the world of media it's still essentially a mole hill, but a large enough mole hill to merit coverage and communication with NBC. GLAAD has to choose its battles in a much larger world than does AE. Both organizations acted totally appropriately.
So why do I consider this incident to be a mole hill? Let me counter that question with a question to you: what exactly about the situation made it a mountain? People have said it was a horrible decision to not adequately cover such a terrific athletic/Olympic moment, to in essence downplay it rather than highlight it. But that's not a gay issue, that's an athletic issue. Or it's an issue of America-centrism that raised its head in many other sports. No one with any sense of perspective would say that NBC said "hey, let's not cover the diving very much since that awful gay guy is entered in it". So you can be very disappointed, as I am, that a magnificent achievement was not given its due, but again, that's not a gay issue, it's an athletic or entertainment issue.
Others feel slighted by the announcers mentioning Matthew's issues that he overcame to get to the Olympics. However, as has been pointed out, those issues are NOT related to his being gay, but rather to burnout, depression and other issues directly related to his athletic standing. The announcers could have chosen at that point to mention his sexuality, but would not the fact of talking about him being gay in the same context as his depression and other things not be seen by some as reinforcing the stereotype of the gay person being unbalanced in some way? The announcers probably took the easy, non-controversial course. Obviously they are open to criticism for that, but to my mind it's mole hill criticism, not mountain criticism.
Still others have a problem with NBC not showing the kiss with Lachlan, or not talking about him like they do other spouses, partners and girl/boyfriends. I thought that by far was where the mole hill began to rise, but Psionycs had some interesting observations on another thread about that, and he raises the distinct possibility that this particular "slight" was more a situation of "strategic" issues (check out his post for more details) rather than an actual avoidance of anything. I don't know the facts well enough to make a judgment, but that's kind of the point in a way. If we don't know the facts, should we leap to conclusions, assuming the worst? Speaking for myself, I can't think that way.
The final issue is the crux: should the diving event have been intentionally focused on by NBC, beyond what they would have done otherwise, solely because Matthew is gay and out? That's too complex to discuss here, and besides, I have very mixed feelings about it. Certainly, the answer is not obvious, and it's easy to see a wide range of reactions to that question.
But the bottom line is that there is no great dissing of the gay community here, no defamation, no grand cover-up of the victorious gay athlete. Rather, there was too much America-centrism, too little preparation, too little flexibility, and a couple of questionable decisions. In other words, a mole hill, not a mountain.
Congratulations to Matthew on his stunning achievement. And for being such a cutie!
GLAAD is media focused
Are you sure you have the correct organization in mind? GLAAD does not focus on "the entire range of the gay issue in all aspects of life". This situation with NBC is exatly their "thing". It's why they exist. It's why they have award show after award show. They police straight media with the exception of radio...which according to the director "would be too expensive" (Hint: try one less award show a year).
Matthew's story is not a case of a mountain out of a mole hill. It's a missed opportunity to tell a story about "first"...all wrapped in one stellar guy. First to score that high in a single dive. First non-Chinese male to take gold in diving in the 2008 games. First openly out athlete to perform in the games. First openly out male to win gold.
Why is it...even among people in our own community...that it's thought to be a big deal to say he's gay? How does saying "There's Matthew's partner Lachlan" suddenly draw focus on the issue? It's one sentence and said in a casual way it would have been a small pebble in a big pond...that one moment would have resinated throughout the world. The discussion would have happened after the fact...it wouldn't have stopped the moment.
The games were not shown here live. They were edited and in some parts voiced over after the fact. They knew the drama that was coming. Not the "gay" drama, but the nail biter at the end. They could have eaily voiced over some facts about Matt...made sure they had footage of Matt's kiss to his mom and partner.
Dennis, we all entitled to our opinions and I have no doubt that you are very honest and sincere in your appraisal of NBC's actions. NBC slighted Matt...hell, all the announcers had to do is go to NBC's own bio of Matt and they would have seen he is gay.
And one last point about mountain out of a mole hill...I invite anybody to go look at old footage of the Olympics and see how it was treated when the first black athletes won gold...or other minorities. It was not avoided...it was celebrated.
Oops, I was wrong....
You are totally correct about GLAAD. As a non-member I haven't followed them that closely, but I remembered stuff they did that seemed to be related to more than media. (As just one example I remember some stuff about Matthew Shepard.) I just went to their website (which I should have done before my last post) and confirmed that they are indeed focused on media issues. Mea culpa.
So then your criticism of GLAAD is understandable. Though to agree with it I'd have to assume that the Mitcham issue is a big enough one to grab their interest. I maintain that the situation was more an athletic snub or snafu than a gay one, for the reasons I laid out before. I thought AE pursuing on the basis they did was valid, but I can respect the decision of another organization to deem this mole hill not worthy of their time.
Beyond that, you're missing my point to a large degree, and overlooking things I clearly stated. I agree NBC missed the boat on the athletic achievement, and I so stated. I agree that it's totally no big deal to state he's gay, and that it would be great if they said "there's his partner Lachlan". Yes, NBC slighted Matt. I said all that. But can you not understand how someone could see a botched athletic coverage, an over-reliance on showing American athletes, and a missed chance to acknowledge someone's partner, and be unhappy (for intellectual honesty reasons, if nothing else) when it is blown up into a major brouhaha, with full-throated rage and disgust and hyperbole? So much psychic energy is being wasted on something that simply doesn't deserve it. This is what we're going to rush to the barricades about?
You raise the issue of this event warranting expanded coverage because Matthew is the first out athlete in the Olympics. Just for the record, that's not true. There were 11 out athletes in Beijing, though Matthew was the only male (http://gerod.blogspot.com/2008/08/final-olympics-commentary.html) The group as a whole won seven medals. There have been out women at prior Olympics. And, of course, there were many gay athletes in previous games, some of whom came out later. The issue you raise is an interesting one. How much attention should an event get solely because the winner is an out gay male? Yes, I know, the event should have gotten more attention for the athletic achievement. But that's not the issue. How much attention should there be simply because the winner is out and gay? You compare it to the first black athletes. The issues are WAY too complex to discuss here, but large numbers of black people would disagree with the relative importance of those two situations. (And I'm not talking about the homophobic black people.) What does it mean to know that gay people have competed and won gold before, even though they weren't out? How much difference exists between being able to compete and choosing to hide your sexuality on the one hand, vs. being barred entirely as a race? I don't have the answers to those questions. All I'm saying is that those questions and others like them are highly debatable by intelligent, open minded people.
At the risk of sounding like a starry-eyed utopian, we are heading toward a new world where hardly anyone (save the fringe elements) will care if we're gay. That world is closer than most people realize, perhaps 10-20 years away. In that world the sexuality of a Matthew Mitcham won't be discussed, not because people have a problem with it, but because it doesn't matter. Today, no one cares if a black, white, or any other color person wins a gold, and in the future no one will care if a gay or straight person wins. Part of me is already in that world, and it feels just a bit condescending to make too big a deal out of a gold medal because the winner is gay. Yes, obviously, I know that his identification as gay can make a difference to people in today's real world. And for that very reason (and PLEASE don't miss this), NBC SHOULD have found a way to show Lachlan and the kiss in exactly the casual way you mentioned. BUT.... lacking any concrete information that NBC's actions were caused by anything worse than incompetence or a too-deep focus on Americans, the fact that they didn't do that is, for me, cause for disappointment, not disgust or rage. In other words, it's more of a mole hill than a mountain.
I am with GayTVluver on this one
Your calling this a mole hill more than a mountain until the cows come how does not make it so anymore than someone else calling it a mountain and not a mole hill. I happen to agree with you on many of the possible reasons behind the apparent snub, but why not allow respectful posters to ask questions without going back to the academics to deconstruct their questions? Some of what you said you about clearing up for the record needs zero clarification as most on this site know that Matthew is the one out gay MALE who medaled. No need to give a lesson to those who you interpret/assume as missing your point. You know that you'd call anyone else out on that.
Did you think that maybe he did not miss any point? We get it, some posters jump to conclusions and you advocate a more thoughtful measured approach back by what you deem dispassionate facts. There are two sides to every story, and the "truth" is somewhere down the middle.
Just like you wonder why so many people jump the gun and make assumptions (and since you are human you do the same) sometimes I look at your posts and wonder why you'd even be interested in a site like AE as it focuses on gay men in the media. If there a part of you that actually finds it a little condescending for someone to highlight the sexual orientation of a gold medalist, you've managed to do what few have done: left me speechless. Every one can cheer now as I set myself up for that one!
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Yikes!
I have no idea why you would be attacking me for that post. Yes, I could have been totally reamed for being wrong on GLAAD, and I appreciate the respectful post of GayTVluver. That's why I was respectful in return, and happy to admit to being a total doofus for not checking my facts.
I'm simply stating a difference of opinion, and trying to back up my opinion with fact and logic. For the life of me I can't see what's wrong with that approach. I didn't give his post a low vote, I didn't attack the poster, I didn't get snarky, I didn't disparage his logic. I simply stated an alternate opinion, and tried to back it up. You seem to be saying that jumping to conclusionss and not worrying about facts is a legitimate method of debating. And you seem to be disparaging me for trying to be thoughtful and measured and logical. I honestly don't understand....
Are the only people who are allowed to be interested in a gay male media site those who hop on every bandwagon of outrage and uproar? Is there no room for an alternate view? Or are alternate views allowed only if they aren't cluttered with reason or measured thoughtfulness, to use your terms?
The "condescending" comment requires a somewhat detailed explanation. I was speaking only for myself, though I am acquainted personally with others who would share the same outlook, and I have read the words of yet others. I am EXTRAORDINARILY lucky to be living the life I'm living. And I take no credit for that myself. It's partly the city I live in (where I can go up the street to Lake Calhoun or Lake Harriet and see guys holding hands as they walk around the lake), partly the gay friendly company I work for (where I can be totally out), partly the supportive upper management team that has promoted me twice since I came out, partly a non-judgmental family, and partly a set of totally supportive straight friends (including both of my fantasy baseball teams!). My point is that I live in a world where being gay doesn't define my life, it just defines my sexuality. (Which is NOT to say that I by any means live in a perfect world.) So I would be deeply offended if I were referred to as the "gay Director" at my company. I'm just a Director who, by the way, happens to be gay, though that subject would generally have no reason to come up. It's incidental to my job. In the same way I see Matthew's sexuality as incidental to his "job". I don't know how he feels about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if he'd prefer to be known as the gold medal winning Australian diver, rather than the gay gold medal winning Australian diver.
I know I'm going to get reamed as an elitist for this outlook. As I say, I fully realize how fortunate my life is. However, I have two 20-something friends living a few blocks down the street from me who feel the same way about being gay. It doesn't define them as people, and it hasn't inhibited their lives in any way, from the time they came out as mid-teens. If these guys were gay athletes they would have no interest in getting special coverage just because they happened to be gay. To be defined by their sexuality would indeed be condescending. The future I talked about in my last post is having exactly that situation for a majority of gay people, And that future is on the way.
Awhile back I got into a snit with someone who made the case that the gay community had the responsibility to man the barricades and fight back tenaciously against those awful people who were keeping Luke and Noah on ATWT from kissing more regularly. She said we had to fight back like Rosa Parks did, so that, like Rosa Parks, we could achieve our freedom. I didn't reply, but perhaps I should have pointed out the obvious. Rosa Parks lived in a time when black people were required to sit in the back of buses, where they had to use separate entrances to buildings and separate water fountains, where to even look at a white woman resulted in the Klan coming to torture and then kill them (Emmitt Till), where you went to separate, grossly inferior schools, and were not hired for decent jobs, where your churches were bombed and your daughters killed, where poll taxes and other impediments took away the right to vote, where governors and police and snarling dogs stood in school doorways to prevent integration, and on and on.
And I was being told that the level of kissing by two totally out, totally accepted teens on a soap opera required us to fight back like Rosa Parks so we could reach the promised land. Rosa Parks faced mountains, Emmitt Till faced mountains, James Meredith faced mountains. ATWT is a mole hill. The Matthew Mitcham snub is a mole hill.
I'm too confused to give a good response
I want to give a thoughtful response to this post but the more I read from people saying it's been blown out of proportion (especially gay men saying it) the more confused I get.
So I'll just clarify one thing and respond to another.
First, I was unclear as to what I meant...You are correct, there were openly gay women...I should have been more clear, since this is AE and not AEL I just assumed people would get that.
I'd like to respond to your last paragraph. I don't doubt that one day it won't be a big deal that a gay athlete in a LTR has won a gold medal. I don't doubt that one day it won't be a big deal that a gay athlete scores a winning touchdown (I just love basketball *joke*). But that day is not now. Now is the time when we need exposure like this. Not just for the community but also for the individual. I cannot speak for Matt, but I can say on my own behalf that it's insulting when people don't acknowledge my partner. It shows respect for me, for him and for us when people show acceptance of our relationship. It's not validation. It's respect.
But more importantly it shows an understanding from straight media that they understand that you cannot separate a person from who they are. Yes, Matt wants first and foremost to be seen as a good diver...a good diver who happens to be gay. Not a gay diver. But split it up any way you like...it's all the same thing. It's all the same person. Straight media never has to declare a person's heterosexuality...because society always assumes a person is straight unless they are told otherwise.
This all kind of reminds me of the recent ATWT/Nuke/no kiss clock outrage. MM kept saying the gay community was upset because they were not allowed to kiss. The president of GLAAD was on Derek and Romaine (OutQ) and he brushed off the community's concerns as us being pissed they wouldn't make out. *grrrr* They failed to see the most simple thing...it wasn't that we didn't get to see hotties making out...it's that they weren't allowing gay people to be seen as normal. It's that they were furthering the idea that gay people caring for one another and in love would be shocking.
That is the world we live in and that is why it's important to have gay people and gay relationships respected. If wanting that respect means I'm making a mountain out of mole hills then I'm fine with that and I fail to see what is wrong...perhaps the air is too thin up here.
You posted the above while
You posted the above while I was busily writing the monster that appears as a reply to Guillermo. I directly address in that post much of what you said above, though I had not seen your post as I was writing. Quite a coincidence, actually. I even mentioned the ATWT kissing controversy, again totally by coincidence!
I think we're in one of those situations where we're just sliding past each other, essentially saying the same things in many ways, but saying them differently enough that we don't see the similarities.
I'll say it again, as I did in my "Oops, I did it again" post: I pretty much agree with all of your points. It's helpful to a lot of people if Matthew is shown as an out gay athlete. It would have been awesome if NBC had chosen to do a special piece on him, assuming he were interested in that (which is far from a sure thing). I may not need the inspiration of his identity or his achievement as a gay man as opposed to simply as a diver (and I truly don't mean that as an elitist sentiment; it's just honestly where I've gotten to in my life, partly due to luck and partly due to years of that awful "measured thoughtfulness" that Guillermo so despises), but I realize other people would be helped by it. As I said, they should have found a way to show Lachlan and talk about the relationship, even if they had to make a point of doing it.
Where we see things differently is simply in the magnitude of the slight or snub, or whatever you want to call it. That's really all there is to the disagreement. Perhaps my Rosa Parks story in my monster post will help you see where I'm coming from.
Measured thoughtfulness.....
I doubt that few posters give you the zeros that you complain about (never one from me as you know I don't play that game) because of you see the world differently from "them." My take, which I've shared with you bilaterally, is that many may not respond favorably because of a certain arrogance in style and focus. Even when you agree, have the tendency to split one too many hairs with Wikipedia cut and paste "facts" to support something that is in no need of support. People are smarter and may even know more than you about the subjects that you are instructing them about. You talk a geat deal about those who jump the gun. A look in the mirror might show you that you are as imperfect as the rest of us.
Have you considered that the microcosm in which you and your post-gay twenty-something neighbors might not exist if it was not for the CONTINUED efforts of gay and gay-friendly people who are able to be philosophical but also choose to take active roles in challenging the status quo?
Maybe you don't care that the world for most gay people is quite different than your point of reference. Mine is pretty darn good too, but the older I get, the more that I see that this is not all about me and I owe many other gay people a voice that uses my grey matter for more than taming their emotions by putting forth ideas that their impressions have little relevance as they have no proof of x,y,z. We'll never have irrefutable proof about most things, but sometimes there is enough smoke to ask leading questions and demand some answers from the media.
A little humor might help too, as even those who you qualify as gun jumping whiners, have funny bones and engage in a comradery that goes beyond these "differences" that you seem to think separate you from a less enlightened "pack." If you enjoy playing martyr, enjoy. We can talk about elitism another time, but I want to curb my tendency to write way too much as that is yet another of my imperfect tendencies at work.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Thanks for keeping us updated, Michael
THIS is what I really appreciate about AfterElton (as compared to other merely enjoyable gay-centric blogs and websites).
I mean, would I like a longer apology with details about an upcoming profile on Mitchem to air on this Thursday night on NBC primetime with all commerical sponsorship provided by AussieBum? Um, yeah. But this short note from NBC shows that they have heard our concerns. That they are now aware of something important to a significant viewing audience (both gay and non-gay). They can be held accountable going forward for reporting or not reporting on stories about gay atheletes.
I truly appreciate hearing about what's actually happening with AfterElton's newsgathering and reporting process as it's happening. Sure, I love the funny posts and insightful videos and colorful critiques of pop and gay culture. But it's the efforts the editorial team at AfterElton takes to highlight THE STORIES THAT AREN'T BEING TOLD ABOUT GAY AND BI GUYS that's so impressive. And this time, in telling your readers about a story that wasn't being told, you made a powerful point to network executives at NBC. So thanks.
You guys are great! Keep up the good work.
I agree -- good job on this, AE
I think AfterElton was absolutely right to keep the spotlight on NBC about this. I'm not one for measuring LGBT progress by how many gay characters are on TV this season, but I think the coverage of Mitcham is a pretty clear case of an athlete's achievement being minimized out of homophobia -- or rather because of NBC's assumption of homophobia on the part of it's viewers, which is itself another form of bigotry. I'm very pleased that you kept after it as you did.
No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces!
"We've given this issue a
"We've given this issue a lot of coverage; too much according to some folks responding in the comments."
That`s why this apology comes just in time.And I personally think Afterelton had done the right thing.If it wasn`t for AE the gay community probably won`t get a apology like this at all.Hopefully NBC would learn from it and get it right next time.
Thanks to Michael & the other writers at AE for your hard work,I`m really proud to be an Aftereltoner! ;)
Congratulations!
Kudos to AE, but as for the apology...
Too little, too late, too pointless.
I'm sure the very next time an out gay male athlete delivers an unbelieveable, last minute performance to steal the Olympic gold away from an insurmountable favorite, NBC will be all over it!
I'm sure the circumstances will occur really soon so that NBC will be able to do so much better the next time.
This is the first time in a
Triple Standard
The mainstream media will only use the word "gay" if they can rip someone down with it. One need not look any further than the recent story of the two college wrestlers who did solo nude modeling for Fratmen.com and the media hysteria that surrounded it. Although they had only appeared nude by themselves, the media headlines screamed "COLLEGE WRESTLERS IN GAY PORN SCANDAL!!" and made lots of "corn holing" references. Lost in the details was that what they did could barely be considered porn, let alone gay.
Then you get a good role model like Matthew. Strong, attractive, well spoken and famous for doing something other than dating Lance Bass. The media decided that his orientation was "private." When straight people do stuff, the wives and kids and girlfriends are put front and center. Michael Phelps chose not to talk about his personal life so the media had to make up stories about him dating Amanda Beard.
But a major story like Matthew's come from behind victory and his status as the only out gay male in the Olympics wasn't enough of a "feel good" story.
And that's the real problem, isn't it?
For straight people, the only "feel good" gay story is when gay people are scum and straight people "feel good" for being superior to us.
Sad, really.
"For straight people, the
"For straight people, the only "feel good" gay story is when gay people are scum and straight people "feel good" for being superior to us."
Hang on there, not all straight people feel that way, I certainly don't.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement, I speak as I find, always. and I certainly don't feel superior to anyone.
I agree with everything you wrote before that last sentence though.
Interesting
At least there is acknowledgement of a missed oportunity, which is more than I expected them to do. Hopefully they will learn something out of it.
Congrats AE!!! Your coverage was warranted. This was something worth following up. Well done.
This paragraph should have been the response given....
"We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham's story. We apologize for this unintentional omission."
Who could have argued with this as who does not miss opportunities and makes a general apology that will generate good will as no one can prove why this story was ignored.
Being the skeptic that I can be, I imagine that the spokesperson that Micheal spoke to will be canned, placed on administrative leave, or if he covered his butt well by documenting NBC's tactic at said time, might as well start looking for a job elsewhere as he'll be used as a scape-goat that what was probably an arrogant and tired Olympic coverage group coming off a very well received outing with ratings that kicked ass.
Fair apology, now get Matthew on a Dateline exclusive airing before one of the many new NBC shows that appear to be dead on arrival as the Olympics are over and this network would be wise to milk this as long as they can. Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
No it was NOT an accident Liz
This was quite intentional. As far as NBC was concerned the Olympics were all about Michael Phelps. And therefore Compulsory Heterosexuality ruled. Therefore Amanda Beard (an appropriate name, perchance?)
With a "REAL MAN!!!" winning all thsoe medals, how could they roil the waters by spotlighting the Totally Unexpected Triumph of a gay Aussie diver who beat the astounding record of the host team in that same sport? Not possible. So they trusted no one would notice.
But we did!!!!!
i never said....
i never said it was an accident. i only said i don't think they did this with the intention to offend anyone. To put it more clearly, i don't think they said "gee, let's offend the gay community by not giving attention to matthew mitcham..." - now i DO think they didn't really care about his story simply because they probably knew they would have to bring up the 'gay issue'
they just didnt think anyone would take notice of this 'brush off' - - but as we see, they were mistaken.
If you don't cover it, who
If you don't cover it, who did? The point of AE is to cover stories of gay interest, then covering the story of this young man's triumphs is correct. Was it too much? Well, it was a first for an out gay man, it was a complete upset in his event, even he didn't expect it, it was the first Diving medal for Australia in what?, a hundred years? These seem to be compelling reasons to tell the story and the fact that NBC didn't. Was the complaint against NBC valid? Yes! If they can cover heterosexual triangles, lost wedding rings and other things that seem trivial in light of this young man's accomplishments, then the criticism was warranted and somebody needed to criticize.
If AfterElton takes its job as an outlet for any part of the gay community, especially media of all kinds, then you tell the stories and you point out the inequities. If you didn't then who would or did?
Too Much? Depends on how important you believe it was to point out the inequities! The point is, I would have never heard of this except for AE and I don't think many others would have either. It is a wonderful story and I got to see the video through AE and it was incredible.
And as is said: "The squeaky wheel gets the attention and the oil!"
I say, Good Job, Well Done, AfterElton!
:}
"You bit the hand, Marty, You bit the hand!"
Apology by NBC
All of this discussion about whether the event should or should not have been covered pales in comparison to the real insult here; the asinine excuses given when they were called on it.
Failing to air one event among many could be the result of one of a hundred things -- possibly homophobia, yes -- but not necessarily. Poor judgement would be my guess.
What is really bigoted and homophobic was the excuse of "Not discussing any athlete's sexuality" and failure to recognize -- even after it was pointed out to them -- the significance to the olympics and to the Gay community. The excuses were ignorant and arbitrary. If they had offered a simple "Gee, we dropped the ball on this one -- sorry," most of us would have thought they were less-than-competent, but not necessarily bigoted. I think there would have been little notice and less follow-up, but the bigoted and self-serving responses when they were called on it only brought attention to their failure to judge the importance of Mitcham's victory and to the bigoted attitude of those in charge.
As a reasonable person, I will tell myself to be satisfied with an apology, but the circumstances and timing make me wary of the intent and sincerity. I am very disappointed in NBC.
burying Matt Mitcham's record-breaking dive
I know there were a lot of gold medals and a lot of records broken this year. But, given that this particular record-breaking gold medal fits in perfectly with one of the major over-arching narratives that NBC and other media placed on the Olympics this year -- that of China versus the rest of the world in a race for bragging rights over medal count -- it's very, very difficult for me to believe that burying his story was an unintentional omission on the part of NBC.
Particularly when, going into the Olympics, he already had a pretty high media profile. The wider public may not have been aware of his cover stories in the gay press, but I simply don't believe that no one at NBC Sports had seen them.
I enjoy a true-life gay love story as much as anyone. But the main purpose of Olympic reporting is not to bring us true-life love stories -- however eagerly NBC has done so in the case of other athletes this year. What makes me angry is that I can't help but think Mitcham's achievement as an athlete did not get the coverage it would have had his partner been called Lachlina instead of Lachlan.
No, not "distant gay traces" -- it's distingué traces!
Neither mountain nor molehill... maybe "bunny hill"?
In fact, I don't believe the omission was unintentional. I firmly believe NBC knew exactly what it was doing every step of the way. The network paid billions for broadcast rights to the games and meticulously planned out every single minute of air time. This is the company that has lackeys scouring YouTube, Dailymotion and other streaming video sites looking for the smallest snippets of "contraband" Olympic footage. I know because I made the mistake of uploading 34 seconds of the tail end of the U.S. men's 4x100m freestyle relay to YouTube and Dailymotion and both times, the video was pulled for violating copyright (plus my YT account got suspended), even though such brief clips are usually allowed under "Fair Use" rules.
So I find it hard to believe that a company that pays such attention to detail would miss the opportunity to cover the story of the men's 10m platform champion, whoever he turned out to be. Do we seriously believe NBC didn't have video packages all prepared for either Chinese diver with their appropriately heart-wrenching backstories of all they had to sacrifice for their sport when, as expected by everyone, China completed an historic 8-for-8 sweep of the diving golds? Are we to believe the network didn't have heart-warming video footage of the two American divers as little kids, all set to play if and when one of them were to end up on the podium? Of course since neither Chinese won, nor did the Americans reach the podium, no doubt they had to forego using any of these backstories. So what did they do with the freed up air time?
Even if one were to believe NBC was completely unprepared with no back story video package for Matthew Mitcham (or the Russian or the Cuban, who were both in contention), this is the same network that regularly tape-delays major Olympic events for broadcast in prime time. They even heavily hype such premiere events like diving to remind viewers to tune in at prime time. It's mind-boggling NBC couldn't have done something like, oh, showing the entire medal presentation ceremony and aftermath, or maybe - radical thought here - interviewing Matthew Mitcham (and his mom and his partner). It's not like Matthew wasn't available. He had time to be interviewed in French for Radio-Canada (the francophone arm of the CBC), to attend the official press conference (covered by international media like Reuters and Australian press, among others) and to answer impromptu questions about his plans for London 2012 while walking outside the Water Cube with his mother and his partner. All this took place before NBC's prime time tape-delayed broadcast.
So no, I don't think the apology was fine at all. It's a disengenuous response designed to hopefully defuse any bad press before it gets worse. Have some readers here taken overly extreme positions on this matter? Perhaps. But NBC isn't helping its own case by being less than forthright about their reasons for ignoring the Mitcham story.
You got it RJ!
If Matthew wasn't gay do you
If Matthew wasn't gay do you think the other reasons that he is wonderful would have been broadcast on American telly? I would really like to know what you think.
Surely if you score the highest score for a dive, win the gold medal and beat the expected Chinese clean sweep, wouldn't you get mentioned? All countries are mostly concerned with their own competitors but his accomplishment seems more than impressive enough to me.
I admire your determination greatly Michael.
Yes because they did cover other non Americans
An inadvertant ommisiion isn't the problem
Thanks to everyone for all of the thoughtful
AE's coverage has been very respectful
AE's coverage has been very respectful and not at all "whiny". I think the perception of "too much coverage" stems in part from the many posts from us, the readers, essentially reiterating the same thoughts and frustrations over and over.
But if we as a community do not focus on these issues and raise awareness, who is going to do it for us? It's up to all of us to cry foul and say "BS!" whenever the situation warrants it.
Hold head up
Coverage was good. The "apology" from NBC, though, is bogus.
I'm not one to leap to such conclusions but they had the time, they had the footage available, they had the interview opportunities, they had the human-interest angles (surprise win over China, had quit sport, had battled depression, only acknowledged gay olympian) but apparently just didn't have the will.
It's almost hard to believe they're related to the Bravo network.
Oz take on the apology
I know AE hates the swears...but...
...Are they Mother fucking serious??? Now Daily Telegraph should be ashamed! Perez Hilton? They give credit and link Perez Hilton as being an inspiration for NBC's apology? AE! I'm outraged for you!
Jesus Christ...you know...maybe NBC really isn't homophobic, maybe it's just that all mainstream media has it's head up it's ass and good investigative journalism is dead.
And what is it with the media thinking we need a rainbow shined on a gay person and some declaration that "he's gay". I'm just beside myself with how much they don't get it. It's so simple...it's so easy...you don't have to go into great detail. you don't have to describe what they do in bed. You don't have to tell the story of their entire coming out process. It's as simple as showing them as a loving couple.
Sadly I cannot link the video because they keep pulling Olympic related stuff from Youtube, but there is a video of a news show in OZ where Matt and two other athletes are interviewed. the lady doing the interview just casually mentions Lachlan and how he was instrumental in getting Matt back into diving. Matt agrees and gives him credit. That's it...that's a perfect example of how simple it can be. She didn't have to say "Your gay partner" (which I love, btw...as opposed to your straight partner in a same sex relationship?). She didn't have to give all the titillating sexual details..."Lachlan, who bangs your ass..." (just guessing)
God...it seriously doesn't have to be hard, it's that simple.
And just so all your older and more seasoned gay men reading this don't think I'm an ungrateful punk, I do realize how lucky I am that THIS is something that irritates me. This is nothing compared to the struggles and trials prior generations have had to endure...I get that. I'm active in the gay community. My partner and I give lots of time to gay causes and organizations. I just really really hate that today, in the year 2008, the MM still doesn't get it.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Appalling ignorance and homophobia...
I'm also ticked off that the Daily Telegraph gave credit to Poor-Ass H's gossip rag site rather than to AfterElton. Thinking I'd see what he wrote that warranted credit, I checked out the entry on his site and found that all he did was link to the thinkprogress.org article on the subject. Even worse is the cesspool that masquerades as his comments section - appalling ignorance and homophobia run rampant amongst his "loyal entourage". Poor-Ass deserves the "fans" he gets and vice-versa.
I see that most of the links I had collected of Matthew Mitcham and posted in anther blog entry have been pulled. It's a shame the Olympics broadcast rights holders are being so fanatical about removing video clips of the games from streaming sites like YouTube, while at the same time restricting access to their own official videos to just those who reside in their respective countries. Maybe it's not intentional but by doing so, Australia's Olympic broadcaster Channel 7 is effectively depriving their new national hero of greater global recognition.
I confess to being a tiny bit frustrated
Tell a Jerk
The only reason they linked Perez Hilton is because he is a joke. I'd be embarrassed if the Telegraph mentioned me as a source for gay news and information.
Good to know, but I've some US
RJ- I agree with you...
....I was so upset after reading the "comments section" you refer to, I couldn't get to sleep last night. Just when you think progress is being made........
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Way cool!
Michael, you've managed to create an international media scandal! How awesome is that!
Even funnier that this is being mentioned on one of News Corp's sites!