GLAAD comes under fire over Imus

You can add GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) to the growing list of folks (John Kerry, John McCain, Frank Rich) and organizations (MSNBC, CBS) now caught in the blowback over the Don Imus controversy. GLAAD has come under fire from both Gay City News and gay-rights activist Michelangelo Signorile. This GCN article details how GLAAD was considered missing-in-action in regards to Imus--and not just during the most recent flap over the Rutgers basketball team.

GCN's Andy Humm reports that as far back as 2000 another journalist--Philip Nobile--tried to get GLAAD to act on Imus' homophobia (Nobile organized an Imus Watch web page on TomPaine.com), but that despite promising to monitor Imus, GLAAD did nothing. Nobile speculates it was because GLAAD didn't wish to offend The New York Times columnist and frequent Imus guest Frank Rich, to whom GLAAD had just given an award. (Rich addresses the issue in his Sunday New York Times column.)

GCN also reports how GLAAD initially took no public stance in regards to Imus' latest controversy. The paper states that on April 11th, Marc McCarthy, GLAAD's senior director of communications said, "This is not an issue in GLAAD's mission." However, GLAAD's website states their mission as being "...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." Hmm, sure sounds like their mission to me. When GLAAD finally did issue a statement about Imus, they made no mention of his numerous homophobic slurs, nor did they call for his firing unlike other gay groups.

In a blog post titled "Dithering with the Stars", Signorile chastises GLAAD saying their:

...sole purpose these days seems to be to help Hollywood and media figures get through their various homophobic p.r. meltdowns while cooing with praise at the slightest bit of good they do.

Signorile goes on to talk about how GLAAD handled the Isaiah Washington controversy by "... ridiculously accepting his going into some sort of rehab program..." and that these days the organization is more well-known for their lavish awards parties in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami. He also marvels over the fact that GLAAD is honoring Grey's Anatomy for their episode "Where the Boys Are". (I couldn't agree more on this score. Honoring Grey's Anatomy for anything after the appalling way ABC and especially Shonda Rhimes handled the whole controversy is ridiculous.)

So GLAAD isn't exactly popular these days, are they? I have to say, in my eighteen months as editor of this site, I have probably received more complaints about GLAAD than pretty much any other topic. Folks see them as being out-of-touch and more interested in rubbing shoulders with celebrities than doing any real activism.

Ouch!

Clearly, at the very least, GLAAD as a serious public image problem going on and I fear it's more than that.

A couple of things first. GLAAD has been a terrific resource for us in monitoring television and the movies. They immediately got in touch with Jimmy Kimmel after I wrote about his trans-bashing comments (something ignored by a lot of gay websites proving it's not only GLAAD that can drop the ball). I also think that much of the good work that they do never sees the light of day becasue it's done behind the scenes.

They additionally work with Hollywood producers, executives, and writers to educate those folks in order to make sure homophobia never makes it into the light of the day. They also offer critical feedback on scripts and even footage already filmed. And those aren't victories they can exactly crow about. A press release trumpeting "Hey, everyone! We kept those idiot writers of Stupid Family Sitcom from giving us a lisping gay neighbor who wears a dress!" probably wouldn't be too well-received.

Some of the criticism also smacks of the sort that any organization encounters from backseat drivers who find it easier to gripe than actually do something.

That being said, the statement above by Marc McCarthy about Imus' remarks not being part of GLAAD's mission is cause for serious concern. And there is no way anyone could accuse Signorile of not being out front leading the charge for better gay representation. In fact, his comments pretty much guarantee there is credence to the charges, including Signorile's fear that GLAAD is too busy with their parties to pay attention to the activism they're supposed to be doing. I have to wonder if part of the reason GLAAD wasn't missing during the Imus controversy is because they were too busy getting ready for last Saturday night's Los Angeles shindig with Jennifer Aniston.

Signorile feels that GLAAD needs to suspend their award ceremonies (big fundraisers for them) to reestablish their credibility as they have become too dependent on that Hollywood money. Perhaps that is the case (though those dollars won't be easily replaced). One thing is for certain--GLAAD has to either get out and explain to the community exactly what they are doing and why, or they have to start doing a better job of fulfilling their mission. Otherwise the rank-and-file of the gay community will dismiss them as utterly irrelevant. That would be bad news for GLAAD and for us.