What's up with "Time Magazine" and out Senior Writer John Cloud?
With less than a week to go before election day — an election that includes a hugely momentous vote in California on Proposition 8 over the rights of gays and lesbians to marry — now certainly seems an appropriate time for an interesting article on gay issues in politics. Perhaps something about how Karl Rove and his Republican strategists have so successfully used gay rights as a wedge issue. Or how Mormons and other conservative religious groups from outside California have poured millions into that state, turning what had been a likely defeat of the anti-gay initiative into a neck and neck race. Well, Time Magazine does have a new story on gays and politics, but it's called "The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Politics", an article describing a "secretive" and "clandestine" group of wealthy gay benefactors so powerful that they are supposedly literally redefining politics in the United States. What's next, an article about the cabal of Jews who control America's banks? Seriously. An article this inflammatory now, a week before gays might lose the right to marry in California and prejudice and bigotry are running sky-high? The Yes on Prop 8 ad practically writes itself.
The article, written by Senior Writer and gay gadfly John Cloud, is one in an unfortunately long line of gay hit pieces by the journalist (but more on that later). Cloud's "Mafia" article goes on to describe a "web of connections" used by "secretive" wealthy gay men to advance their "liberal" agenda. For no apparent reason, Cloud finds it necessary to reassure readers that there is apparently nothing illegal about the group's actions, but he then bizarrely introduces the name of Clement Stone, a contributor to Richard Nixon who used fake Nixon-created groups to funnel money into Nixon's campaign. Why Cloud does this I have no idea, except to somehow tarnish these gay men through some sort of guilt-by-association. Honestly, for a while I thought I was reading the latest screed by the American Family Assocation, not a news article in Time Magazine.
The very first sentence in Cloud's piece on the murdered teen found it necessary to note that King sometimes "wore make-up and nail polish" before Cloud went on to say things are mostly hunky-dory for GLBT youth, citing statistics from the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN ). Many objected to Cloud's interpretation of GLSEN's statistics including GLSEN who forced Time to amend the article and add a notation they felt Cloud was twisting their statistics. Among other facts from GLSEN's study, Cloud cited the fact that "only" 18% of GLBT youth reported being assaulted that year and that while 66% had heard anti-gay remarks, 62% of students also reported sexist remarks ... so, see? Things really aren't that bad for gay kids — the occasional gay-bashing and murder notwithstanding. Without even pointing out how many GLBT kids simply drop out of school, Cloud's interpretation of the facts were frankly mindboggling. Safety of gay students isn't really an issue when 22% of gay kids don't feel safe at school? In the piece, Cloud also asserts that anti-discrimination laws protecting GLBT citizens really amount to little more than "thought police" and are detrimental to the gay rights movement. (It probably won't be much of a surprise to learn Cloud is a Libertarian.) King's murder was hardly the only time Cloud has, um, looked at facts differently than do most folks. In early October of this year, Cloud penned "For Gay Marriage, Time to Go Beyond the Courts", an opinion piece deriding the Connecticut Supreme Court for ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Cloud's beef with Connecticut? The Justice's 85 page ruling talked too much about gays being "victimized" and pointed out that when it comes to politics the number of elected gay officials "reflect their status as a small and insular minority." Not true! says Cloud, citing statistics from the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute that there are 398 elected out gay or lesbian officials in the U.S. Of course, what Cloud fails to mention is that according to America.gov, there are 8,500 National and State level elected officials and 500,000 locally elected officials (including mayors, sheriffs, city council members). Just using the 8,500 figure, that means gays and lesbians hold fewer than 5% of all elected positions (and in all likelihood most of those are concentrated in the bluest of the blue states). Really, John? That gives us a powerful voice? (Cloud also cites the fact that there are wealthy gay donors as if that offsets the Wal-Marts and Mormon churches of the world). Cloud also rails against the Connecticut's description of gays as a weak, vulnerable minority as if it is directed at him personally. He's also glad that in all the U.S. states, only the Iowa Supreme Court has a ruling pending on the issue of same-sex marriage. From Cloud's point of view, the court rulings have been disastrous, incurring a huge backlash, and the only way forward is politically, winning marriage equality legislatively. Or as Cloud puts it "without our having to beg for equality from judges who take pity on how glum our lives are." Beg? Is that what he thinks of Brown vs the Board of Education was? How about Bowers vs Hardwick? Begging? Goodness, we might as well do away with that whole silly Supreme Court business pronto! First, the judicial system is a perfectly valid way for minority groups to advance their rights. Second, Cloud is ignoring recent history, some of it right in front of his face. California twice — twice! — passed same-sex marriage in the legislature only to have that state's Republican governor veto it. And now gay groups are having to fight off an anti-gay initiative (no doubt with money from some of those "secretive" rich gays!) after having won the right to marry just in the way Cloud wants. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled for same-sex marriage, their state legislature twice voted to protect it and Massachusetts' voters now strongly support same-sex marriage. In other words, no matter what tactic we take, there is going to be a backlash and it takes a wide range of thoughtful opinions, voices, and tactics to contribute to the debate and move things forward. Please note I said "thoughtful" opinions. Frankly, I can't see what Cloud contributes except to stand on the sidelines lobbing rhetorical bombs and playing the smug, disingenuous contrarian. Frankly, I don't think it's a coincidence that our corporate media tend to pick and promote gay voices such as Cloud's, voices that tend to blame gay people for their own victimization. But that's the subject of a different post. Submitted by on Fri, 2008-10-31 14:21. |
![]() Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|









Praising Ann Coulter?
How much do you want to bet that Miss Thing is a Log Cabinette?
Secret gay mafia? Puleeze. That bit of mental masturbation is lifted whole cloth from a Will & Grace rerun. All that's lacking is a guest appearance by Elton John.
Joshua Norton
San Francisco
Cloud on Gay Relationships
Wait...this guy is gay?
As I was reading this yesterday, I was thinking that they got a real right wing nutjob to write this piece. Im really surprised to know he is openly gay. Spineless log cabiner anyone? I didnt make the connection to the King piece, which explains a lot about this one, and Ann Coulter?, dont get me started.
Talk about scare tactics. While I dont find anything wrong with the group itself and reporting on it, the tone of the piece was really disturbing. And the timing is peculiar. This was meant to scare someone, not to inform.
So there's a NEW Gay Mafia now?
The old one was David Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Calvin Klein, and Barry Diller -- with Fran Liebowitz as Court Lesbian. That one was all about sex and shopping. This one is apparently about serious politics . And Miss (Wandered Lonely As A) Cloud doesn't like that one bit.
Why doesn't he text-message Peter LaBabara and get it over with ?
Gay mob
There's no silver lining with this Cloud
John Cloud's writing always makes me cringe.
Michael, thank you for writing this excellent article exposing how off the mark John Cloud is on so many GLBT issues!
Cheers,
Shane aka QTC
Editor and Publisher
QueerTwoCents.com
Cloud also used Larry King's death to promote his......
It's also worth nothing that Cloud screwed up his GLSEN percentages in the first place. His answer was to replace the wrong numbers in the online version of the article and sticking to his guns about all being fine and dandy with gay youth. If one good thing came from the second wave of attention that Larry's death had is that all kids who are different are getting the living crap beaten out of them and /or being made to feel like they are worthless.
Cloud needs to get a life as the bits which he's shared with readers makes him sound like a lonely/bitter man. Like his hero Anne Coulter, he probably knows that all attention is good attention and seems to be carving a nice little niche for himself.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Cloud is excrement and I am glad to see you speaking up
This is the type of commentary that I look for and I am glad to find on AE. Please increase the focus on these matters as it's the key driver for me.
Wow...
There's A Gay Mafia!?!?!
LOL!!!
Are they on vacation somewhere with Bigfoot and Jimmy Hoffa, 'cause I sure haven't seen them. . .
TIME for Sensationalism
I used to think Newsweek was better
But now both Time and Newsweek are pretty much useless. The thing that has always bothered me about any of the newsweeklies is that their approach is very parochial--written from the point of view of the straight, white, protestant male--everything else is the "other," whether it be black, hispanic, jewish, female, gay, etc., etc.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Hiding In Plain Sight
"Fair and balanced she isn't. This conservative flamethrower enrages the left and delights the right. Is she serious, or just having fun."
Now Michael,
You know who that tagline was really about;
The professional is sometimes autobiographical.
I read TIME and NEWSWEEK every week
I'm 40 and have been reading them since I was in 7th grade or so; I also read PEOPLE, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, National Review (!), the Advocate, OUT, Instinct, the New Yorker, and occasionally Mother Jones and others. (This takes a good 2-3 hours at Borders on a Tuesday night.) Part of it's habit based on 30 years; however, part of it is a sincere desire to be well-informed from a variety of perspectives (including our enemies; hence National Review). Lots of people still get their info from hard-copy magazines, even if it's just sitting in the dentist's office, which is where something like PEOPLE comes in when they routinely feature articles about gay Americans, famous or not. PEOPLE and its twin US were two of the only national magazines in the '80's to discuss the AIDS epidemic when famous actors started getting sick and dying; I distinctly remember an '82 US with E.T. on the cover--which is why I bought it--and the headline "Mysterious Cancer That's Killing Gay Men." Such "fluffy" magazines were bringing this issue into people's homes long before "serious" magazines such as U.S. News and World Report--a rag I'd use to wipe my tuckus if it was ever in my home--ever dared to talk about it. (I don't trust national "news" magazines that have no interest whatsoever in the arts.)
I don't mean to start an argument, but not everyone reads everything on the Net--especially seniors, younger students (who get magazines in their high school libraries), and the poor or working-class. So yes, I'd say it's still vitally important to see how articles such as these portray our community and our issues.
Read not buy?
They let you do that? As a retailer, it's costing them and every one of those publishers hundreds per year to let you sit and read TIME, Newsweek, PEOPLE, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, National Review, the Advocate, OUT, Instinct, and the New Yorker without purchase.
Is it any wonder circulation continues to fall through the floor forcing content cutbacks, staff layoffs, retreat to online-only or even a periodical's total cancellation?
Yep, they do
I worked at Barnes & Noble for a few months once upon a time; they only care that people don't walk out with something without paying for it. But sitting around and reading the books and magazines in the store...not a problem. Except that at the end of the night, we had to spend 30 minutes to an hour going around the store and picking up all the books and magazines that had been misplaced by customers.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
It's a loss leader
They get you inside and hope a good percentage will buy something on their way out. I don't think they can really repeal it now without turning people off at this point, so there's a strict receipt-only return policy now for both B&N and Borders and rumors every once in a while of them merging.
I've got to say I like being able to read things anywhere and having my own copy, but I also have to say it's nice to be able to leaf through something first. That's how I got hooked into manga.
Yes indeedy, exactly like that
I rack up points on my Borders rewards card every week getting a snack (usually a herbed-cream-cheeze pretzel and a mocha), which means I basically pay them $5 rent for the evening. However, I rack up Borders reward points on my card with each purchase, and every week they send me a 25%-33% discount coupon. If I don't pick up a magazine for keeps (and you'd better believe I'll buy a TIME with Obama on the cover next Friday), I still often pick up a DVD or book as a gift on my way out.
And I always, ALWAYS put my magazines back when I'm done reading them. :) In fact, on more than one occasion, someone's seen me replacing an armful of periodicals and asked me for directions to restroom or where a certain section is; if I'm feeling playful, I just tell 'em and don't let on that I don't work there.
(In the heyday of the 90's, I worked at the Wherehouse in the financial district of SF, and all I did for 8 hours a day was wander around and help people find CD's and stuff or make recommendations. It was little more than minimum wage, but it was a sweet, sweet job. Alas, the online world has killed off such things. Too bad, that's where I got to befriend lots of cool artists, including Chris the bass player from Pansy Division.)
Wait a second...
Lord have mercy...
You know, I feel so sorry for sensationalists, because they clearly do not understand or feel compassion or empathy (those things which make the rest of us human). Ann Coulter, I hope you find peace one day. As for John Cloud, I think he needs to quickly realize that his actions influence the world he will ultimately have to live in. As a gay man, (he IS gay, right?), does it not strike him as somewhat counter-producive to describe the actions of benefactors of gay-rights activists as "secret"?
Just what is it that he thinks they have to hide, I wonder? I heard that some companies were being threatened to be exploited for their support to vote no on Prop. 8, but that those same companies were content to openly admit their standpoints and views, and make those threats know to the media. If anyone is being "secretive", Cloud might try looking at the opponents actions. I'll think he'll find correlation there.
ugh
I've know John for some time, and he usually gets a bad rap. But this piece is really weird. I couldn't find any evidence that the "Cabinet" was actually secretive. Everyone even remotely aware of gay rights campaigns knows that these guys are the biggest money brokers, and most of their donations are in the public record. So who cares if they talk to each other about who are the best candidates and campaigns? What is strange about that?
He seems to think these guys' money is stamping down the "street" movement. He should check out what's happened in California the last three months. The No on 8 TV ads are not underwritten by rich folks as much as people like me and my mom giving $50 and $100. The 7500 people passing out No on 8 fliers at the polls were not recruited by rich white guys. And the people on street corners waving home-made signs are not paid an hourly wage. Last night, 7000 people swarmed Hillcrest in San Diego to protest Prop 8. All we had were cheap candles and signs.
Considering that the Advocate did the exact same story months ago -- and without the appalling comparisons to Clement Stone -- AND there isn't actually anything new in John's reporting AND he didn't even get any of the Cabinet to talk to him on the record, I don't see why the story was run. He didn't even peg it to Prop 8, which these guys have given tons of money to stop.
But he did manage to refer to Stonewall as "slightly foolish." Wow.
Cloud deserves any/all bad rap that he gets
He's Done It Again
Thanks for posting this Chris! John Cloud is a slimy guy
There are many elements of the newest incarnation of said magazine that in many ways make it a stronger and more opinionated magazine than it was in the past, but some of the opinions go beyond being provocative to being irresponsible. Cloud loves to cross that easy line every single time that he writes something. I would not be as concerned as disregarding his junk if he was not taking a dump on such a critical subject matter.
Hopefully this loss will motivate more of us to get involved so that articles like this one become as irrelevant to me as George Will's weekly suck-up to all that is Ronald Reagan and how we really are not in the middle of a recession.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com