The Manti Te’o Story Is Back And The Question Remains: Is He Gay?

After Dr. Phil stepped in and set the world straight (no pun intended), the Manti Te’o story seemed to fade into the abyss—kind of like Notre Dame’s undefeated season in the national championship game. But on Monday Te’o’s name again popped up on my Twitter feed.

Towleroad and Outsports both posted a clip of an interview with NFL analyst Mike Florio on the Dan Patrick Show. Florio, who was speaking about Te’o’s performance at the NFL Combine, claimed that NFL teams want to know if Manti Te’o is gay. Florio called it the “elephant in the room.”

Continue reading “The Manti Te’o Story Is Back And The Question Remains: Is He Gay?”

Illuminating the Past: Interview with Reporter Covering the AIDS Beat in New Orleans During the 1980s

When I defended my master’s thesis in the spring of 2011 I knew the work was far from perfect. What is that they say? A shoddy thesis is a done thesis. I’m not saying my work is shoddy just far from perfect. But one of the things that was missing was an interview with reporters who were covering the AIDS epidemic in New Orleans (at both the mainstream and gay and lesbian newspapers). A couple of weeks ago I conducted the first interview on the road to perfecting my research.

The following are highlights from my interview with John Pope, who was the AIDS beat writer for the New Orleans Times-Picayune beginning in 1985.

John Pope became the AIDS beat writer for the Times-Picayune in New Orleans in the summer of 1985. Before Pope began working the beat, the newspaper relied on wire news stories and a few local written pieces, which were picked up by other, randomly assigned reporters. Pope began working for the Times-Picayune in 1980 when the newspaper merged with the city’s evening daily, the States-Item, where he was a general assignment reporter. Pope, a native of New Orleans, recounted his first AIDS assignment as well as the events that led to him covering the disease on a full-time basis.

Continue reading “Illuminating the Past: Interview with Reporter Covering the AIDS Beat in New Orleans During the 1980s”

Alaskan Lawmakers Apparently Forgot We Live in a World With YouTube

On Friday, February 15, members of Alaska’s House Majority (Republican) Caucus laughed after being posed a question from a reporter on the body’s position on same-sex civil unions or marriages. Caucus members had gathered to report it’s guiding principals, of which civil unions or same-sex marriages did not rank.

Video of the exchange can be seen via YouTube, and the caucus felt a need, on Monday, to release a statement in regards to the incident. The statement alluded to an inside joke as the reason for the laughter, but, of course, the viewer is not privy to inside jokes. The laughter seems as though it is in response to the legislators’ feelings on civil unions and same-sex marriage.

YouTube, for all of its faults, makes the world a more scrutinized place. Some might say we all have to be too politically correct. I think we are all just a little more accountable for our actions, words, or both. Politicians would do well to remember that.

Less than 10 years ago who have known about this exchange in Anchorage, Alaska? The folks in attendance and maybe the folks who read or watch the news in the city, and then only if those outlets chose to run or to air the exchange.

The reaction and the apology also point to a cultural change in the US. Would the same group have felt the need for such an apology five years ago or even a year ago? I don’t think they would have. What do you think?

Change Always Seems Slow Especially for Traditional Media

A story broke over the weekend of an Atlanta wedding photographer who’s advertisement was rejected from an Atlanta wedding magazine because it feature two women getting married. The photographer, Anne Almasy, responded with an open letter on her website. The letter prompted a response from the magazine editors.

samesexwedd_thumb

In brief, the response was apologetic but it sounded a little too familiar. Familiar because it sounded like the choice to reject the ad was made not because of sound or, at least, established protocol but on a gut reaction. A gut reaction that the publishers are more than likely wishing they would have mulled over a little longer.

Almasy’s letter has been reposted via social media sites and featured on larger blog sites since she first posted it, which means negative attention for Weddings Unveiled, the publication that first rejected the advertisement.

I had a several reactions to story, but my initial reaction was how had a wedding magazine not prepared for this? How? Why? In 2013, when same-sex marriage is legal in nine states as well as the District of Columbia, representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population). Additionally, two Native American tribes—have legalized same-sex marriage, and Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states or jurisdictions.

These are questions the media has to ask itself. What is the newspaper’s policy on running same-sex engagement and wedding announcements? Will our wedding magazine feature same-sex weddings? How do we defend our stance to the public? Do we announce this using our editorial or commentary space?

We have seen from this instance what can happen when a media outlet doesn’t plan ahead. When media professional act on a gut feeling or hunch or act in a discriminatory fashion, it gets notice. Just do a quick Google search for “gay couple denied wedding announcement in newspaper.”

The media should already be prepared and ready to move forward, but if you’re not just take a look at Anne Almasy’s website and the responses to her post.

Queer Presidents’ Day: An Argument for Queering Abraham Lincoln

This morning Huffington Post Gay Voice posted about gay rumors among American presidents. The blog was interesting but nothing I’d never heard before. What was the most interesting to me were some of the reader comments under the post. I know, I know the reader comments can be kooky from time to time, but I think they are sometimes more revealing than the blog post itself.lincolnTHUMB

The readers’ comments let you know what the community of users or readers is thinking. The general feeling of this particular topic, gay presidents—who cares it’s no body’s business. I disagree. A lot of folks care. Just ask the percentage of LGBTQ people in the United States—they care. Better yet ask the homophobic population of this country—they care.

So why does it matter? It matters for so many reasons. A community like the LGBTQ community has a long history, in reality, but officially the community’s history is pretty short. It is pieced together using documents filled with innuendo or coded reference to sexuality. Queer people are now in a position to go back in time and claim our history.

The LGBTQ community needs a group memory to know our place in history. Queering historical figures gives us those memories and establishes our place in American history, but, more importantly, it empowers the community. Figures like Lincoln, the emancipator, the man who saved the Union, the man who may have even slayed thousands of vampires (OK so maybe not the last one), are important to LGBTQs just the same as they are important to every other American—they are part of our identity. And if those figures also happen to be queer, then our queer identity is legitimized that much more.

Do you remember the feeling you got the first time you met another gay man or lesbian? Or the first time you met someone with a similar interest as you? You almost certainly felt some sort of validation for who you are. A queer historical hero is the amplified version of that instance. A queer Lincoln inspires pride.

Maybe a person’s sexuality is no one’s business—and for most ordinary citizens I might agree. But sometimes it is our business. Sometimes we should make it our business.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the story behind the queer Abraham Lincoln here are some great pieces to get you caught up. The first is from Salon. It was written in 1999 after activists Larry Kramer spoke in Wisconsin about the first gay president. This is a more current piece written around the time that the recent release of the biopic Lincoln. Finally, for a more academic look at the queering of Lincoln, this book chapter by Charles E. Morris III is incredible.

Research Update: LGBTQ Historical Research Can Be Rewarding At Times And Down Right Chilling At Others

The past few weeks I’ve been working to gather as many primary newspaper sources from New Orleans regarding the UpStairs Lounge fire—a fire in a New Orleans gay bar that killed 32 on June 24, 1973.

I’ve read a lot of secondary source material about the fire, which included quotes from newspaper and television news stories about the tragedy. But sometimes seeing the coverage with your own eyes is more impactful than originally thought.

There was a passage the day after the fire in the New Orleans States-Item, which was merged with the Times-Picayune in 1980, about the bar and those killed by the arsonist. The passage features quotes and paraphrased quotes from a New Orleans lead detective as to the identities of the victims of the arson. It reads:

…Maj. Morris asked that anyone who believes relatives of theirs may have been in the fire and would have knowledge of their dental records to contact Charity Hospital.
. . . “We don’t even know if these papers belonged to the people we found them on,” Morris said. “Some thieves hung out there and you know this was a queer bar.”
. . . Another police source said it is not uncommon fro homosexuals to carry false identification, which could complicate the identification procedure.

Angus Lind, Lanny Thomas, & Walt Philbin. “13 Fire Victims are Identified.”                     The States-Item Monday, June 25, 1973 A-1 Col. 6

So much for compassion for the victims of a mass murder.

Click the thumbnail below to view the entire first day of coverage from the States-Item.

The States-Item Day One Coverage

Have Television Representations of Queer Sexuality Changed in the Last 40 Years?

This spring semester marks my last full semester of course work—FOREVER! Wow! That’s a great thing to say. But the last semester of course work can only mean one thing—in a year I will be defending my dissertation. That’s almost as frightening as no more course work is relieving.

In preparation for dissertation season, I’ve been reading as much previous research on mass media representations of gays and lesbians from as early as the 1950s. The differences between past coverage of the LGBTQ community as, in some instances, extraordinary, but in other ways we really haven’t come that far.

Last week I wrote about the media’s coverage of homophobia in sports and the potential for an out gay professional athlete in the US. The days of being called “perverts” and “faggots” by the mainstream media are behind us—what the folks on the fringes call us, on the other hand, is a completely different story.

But is not being called a “pervert” enough? Is the presence of gay (and a few lesbian) characters enough?

One thing I’ve noticed in my own media consuming is that very few lesbians or bisexuals are represented, and when a transgendered woman or man is represented he or she is usually the butt of a joke. Most gay men in the media are white. Most white gay men in the media are wealthy, and it seems that the current trend is that most wealthy, white gay men represented in the media are married or at least partnered with children or children on the way.

Oh yeah and they obey the gender binary—one is the “femme” and one is the “butch”.

Gay men on television have gone from “perverts” threatening national security to conservative family men, who are just like everyone else. They represent the heterosexual majority. They have the same desires, the same needs and the same family dynamic.

Isn’t that what we’ve been fighting for? Maybe not.

Since the pre-fall television season, I awaited the arrival of NBC’s The New Normal. Mostly because I sensed that it would give me plenty to talk about in my research, but also just to see how the show would play out in the media and how popular it might become. The show has been successful—or at least it’s still on the air.

I’m just not so sure it lives up to its name. It seems that the only normal the show is portraying is The Same Old Heteronormative. But what does that mean for the LGBTQ community? What does that mean for the non-LGBTQ community? I’m not sure I can answer that—at least not now.

I’ll leave you with a couple of clips. One is from the 1970s Soap, which featured a gay character, Jodie, played by Billy Crystal, and the other clip, is from recent episode of The New Normal. What do you think? How much have we changed?

Season 1 of Soap (1977)

Season 1 of The New Normal (2012)

Some great books to read for additional insights into queer representations in the media.
Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media by Edward Alwood
Up From Invisibility: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Media in America by Larry Gross
From ‘Perverts’ to ‘Fab Five’: The Media’s Changing Depiction of Gay Men and Lesbians by Rodger Streitmatter