While you may disagree, and have every right to do so, the bigger point for many, especially after the tragedy of a few weeks ago in Oxnard, California, was to address the unfortunate coorelation that exists between "bad/unacceptable/lesser than/not-male-like" and "girly/gay." Until this association is ended, it will continue to negativelly affect young gay men all around the world, and in increasingly alarming ways.

While I agree that Luke sucked, America's agreement does not really say anything applicable about homophobia. Irrespectively of Simon's homophobic comment, this singer's  "journey" would likely have ended as he was simply not as good as his competitors.

And while you are right in your assessment that not everything is a slam against gays, AE focuses on those it thinks are valid. No one is saying that what happens at AI is the worst offense of television, simply making the statement that labeling non-mainstream things "gay/girly" makes potentially gay kids start to hate themselves at an early age and upons up the gate for public humiliation in a homophobic society..

At AI, the show's most relevant host call a bad performance "girly" in front of 30+ million people, and that was not meant as a compliment. Simon's shtick is especially duplicitous when it comes from a guy who continues to make a mountain of money on successful “girly” boy bands signed to his label. He also plays the most repetitive gay baiting game with AI's Ryan Seacrest. I hope that neither of them is gay, as has been speculated over and over again. These are two grown men who both know how it feels to be perrceived as gay.

Did Culture Club's 'Do You Really Want To Hurt Me' suck because it was girly? Millions disagreed via the sales generated by the group. Duran Duran? Maybe Simon would call Prince/Michael Jackson/George Michael/every boy band "girlie," but in the music business, it is a known fact that “girly” can be quite a cash cow. Young girls play a critical role in supporting boy bands who provide a safe haven in a world that takes them from diapers to playing will dolls to pressure to have sex way too quickly. Even AI's own "girly" runner-up Clay Aiken, is loved by so many middle-aged “Claymates” that he still has a career. I am not a fan of his, but "girly" sells, but AE is simply pointing out that that show does some harmful things and I am taking it a step further to say that when it comes to music "girly" sells, especially if it's any good.

While I agree with you that there are a million more things that the site (or any site) could do much better, focusing on the use of certain words and questioning whether an out gay male singer will ever be supported by America on AI fits the site’s mandate like a glove.

What upsets me when I read posts such as yours is that it creates the illusion that there is a finite number of subjects that can be covered at AE and that you or other members have no role in the content of this site. Why not use the Forum to introduce subjects that you think are more importanrt, or that you simply think might be more fun than some of the things that you say embarrass you about AE. Why not try to make to a difference?

I have tried to do so was even rewarded via a few professional assignments here, largely based on the quality of the contribution. I recently got shot down big time on one involving my take on the media coverage of the murder of Lawrence King; however I was encouraged to post it in the Forum. Before doing so, I have to think about it as the bigger message that I heard from the powers that be was the media coverage that I hoped helped open some eyes on MRSA and other coverage of the news media that interests me might not be what this site is about.

While I disagree with that perspective, as I think that looking at the bigger picture of news coverage (especially print, which is now almost always online too even before it hits newsstands) with much more frequency should be a vital component in a site focusing on the media; notwithstanding the feedback that I received is taken as an honest assessment based on resource allocation and possibly trying to narrow the broad definition of what defines news, reviews, and commentary in entertainment and the media in this site. AE can't be all things to all people, especially at this relatively young age, but I know that it will strive for more if people speak up in constructive ways.

Before giving away most of my hard work for free, I have to look within to see if there might be other sites which might address some of what I am not getting here as a writer/fan, while continuing to contribute in other ways here as this site is special and supports a great many things that I believe in and entertain me. I know first-hand that TPTB are always looking for feedback, so give it bilatery as you will get an answer. Just because I’ve never seen Torchwood, nor does it interest me (except for the pretty pictures that I see here), it does not mean that it should not be reviewed/covered as it does not come it the expense of what interests me. The gays love sci-fi.

There is room for almost everything, including calling AI on its homophobic remarks or fawning over Cheyenne Jackson. That last part is all me.  I hope that this comment does not fall on deaf ears, but it likely will as chronic complainers are rarely heard from again or they wait to find something else to whine about. AE members are the meat and potatoes of AE, so let's get busy about what should be on here rather than what should not. A wider net that meets the mandate will continue to improve a site which has only been around for a blink versus others not doing anywhere as well.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=518130334