AfterEltonProgram Note: Maupin, NewFest panel, and more
Just a quick check-in on a few items around the site. First, we're sorry if you've been having issues getting onto the site over the past day or two. We've actually had a one-two punch of a new, more robust search engine being installed in the back-end (no, that's not a euphemism) and our sister site AfterEllen.com's getting mad traffic on one of their recent articles, which has slowed things down a bit. Dammit, sis! We're so having a Jan Brady moment right now...
Also, those of you in NYC who have more than a passing interest in gay media are welcome to swing by NewFest (New York City LGBT Film Festival) and see me mumble my way through a panel on gay blogging with some fellow journos from Queerty and Reverse Shot this Saturday. Now you can be bored and offended not just by my writing, but by my very person! We now return you to your regularly-scheduled gay media extravaganza. Thank you. Submitted by on Thu, 2007-06-07 16:50. Thomas Roberts objects to our “biased” headline
In the original post (which I strongly encourage you to read), we asked why Roberts’ sexuality or his partner weren’t mentioned during the story, feeling it was an opportunity missed to demystify stereotypes about gay men and sexual abuse. We also tried to arrange an interview with him to ask about that, but were unable to do so. Several weeks ago, AfterElton.com interviewed Roberts for a series concerning gay on-camera newsmen we are running starting next week. And during that interview, Roberts made it very clear that he felt our post about his appearance on AC360 was unfair. Like - big time. As to why his sexuality and partner weren’t mentioned in the story, Roberts said “It is irrelevant. The story was about sexual abuse, and the person going back to fight for a child that was abused, and what they’re doing today to try and change laws to protect children. It’s not a profile on Thomas Roberts.” And he took special issue with our headline “Did We Miss Something” which he found “biased” and sensational. He felt our take undermined the broader message of the story – shedding light on abuse, and highlighting efforts to stop it. (Obviously, we don’t agree.) Roberts also explained why Goles sexuality was mentioned, while his own was not: “The reason why (Goles) was sent to Father Jeff was specifically part of the story, as was the reason I was sent to Father Jeff … . Michael being sent for being gay is Michael’s story. Me being sent for my parents divorce is my story. Setting up the pretense for why we were put in a predator’s hands.” Ultimately the deal is Roberts doesn’t want the two issues conflated. “I don’t want to draw all these correlations between something that’s not an issue to me – being gay is not an issue to me, being sexually abused; that’s an issue. That’s a problem, that’s illegal. Sexual abuse: issue. Gay: not an issue.” Here at AE we think the question and our post was fair. And so is Roberts’ response. Glad we got that out of the way. Because when somebody has the gumption to come out – we’d much rather support them. Submitted by on Thu, 2007-05-10 11:54. |
User login![]() Recent blog posts
Put AfterElton.com headlines on your site/blog: |








Recent comments
8 min 38 sec ago
16 min 53 sec ago
53 min 11 sec ago
55 min 11 sec ago
1 hour 18 min ago
1 hour 30 min ago
1 hour 37 min ago
1 hour 53 min ago
1 hour 54 min ago
2 hours 20 min ago