BuggBlog

Cutting on the bias

Robbie over at The Malcontent has a screed about the bias of the gay media, in particular the decision by 365gay.com to include lots of coverage of anti-gay allegations being made against Supreme Court nominee Alito in the Senate hearing, but ignoring discussion at the hearing that Alito had ruled with the majority in favor of a gay plaintiff in a case involving high school bullying (you can read it here). Robbie believes this is a gross example of gay media bias.

Perhaps. I would agree that any pro-gay ruling of Alito would be important to mention in coverage. And, of course, it has been mentioned in other gay press outlets, which is why what really bothers me about the screed is the leap of logic it concludes with:

Are there actual journalists in the gay media, or is it safe to assume it mostly consists of mouthpieces for the HRC and other unabashedly partisan groups?

Okay, so it's a screed and screeds by nature make big, blazing assertions about broad topics that might not apply to particular situations. But, speaking as someone who's been working in the gay media for years, it's just another in a string of frustrating accusations of incompetence or bias or worse that are leveled at us almost daily. Granted, everyone with an Internet browser these days fancies themselves a media critic, and to large extent that's a good thing -- we all need to listen more closely to our readers and better understand how our work affects people in the "real" world (however "real" a world is when everyone from D.C. to Fredonia, Ky., can casually converse about ratings and box office totals and all the other things that indicate a media culture gone totally meta).

Perhaps I'm biased (ha!), but extending this blanket criticism over every gay media outlet is, well, silly. Sure, some gay "news" outlets suck -- again, because I'm biased in favor of my own publication, I ain't gonna name names -- but so what. Some blogs suck, some are great. Some news shows suck, some are great. Newspapers -- suck here, no suck there. The world is filled with both the mendacious and the valiant. Proof of the former doesn't obviate the existence of the latter.

Here's the bind we're in as gay media. We have to establish a baseline of bias to operate as gay media: That being gay or lesbian is inherently a good, or at least neutral, part of human life. All objectivity that you bring to a story has to grow out of that baseline, otherwise you're simply not serving your purported audience. But it is possible to be objective, in the sense that you're fair and open-minded about the topics and people you cover, within that established and necessary level of bias.

But people have different ideas about what's objective.  If, say, when I interview the head of one of those "unabashedly partisan" gay organizations (are there any other kind?) I stand back and let them simply talk about their beliefs and efforts and goals, then in the eyes of many I'm just doing a puff piece. If I'm aggressive and questioning and skeptical, then I'm unfairly attacking. And I've gotten both reactions to stories I've written. This is why so many journalists consider it a sign that they're doing something right when they get complaints from both liberals and conservatives.

And that's kind of sad, but it's what you get when everyone approaches their news with the assumption of nefarious intentions on the part of the reporters. Of course you should be skeptical about the media you consume; but skeptical doesn't mean dismissive and hostile. My own favorite response to something I wrote was this, from a very anti-gay youth minister who nevertheless was pretty pleased with his treatment in a gay magazine. I was objective on the story, but I never put aside the bias that's necessary to put out a gay publication.

Am I overreacting a bit? Sure, it's not like that's never happened before. But reading Robbie's post and the comments that followed just put me in one of those defensive crouches that gay mag editors can so easily strike. Our harshest critics, the ones most likely to disdain us as not "real" media, are from the gay community. Don't even get me started on the double standard gay publications have to endure on advertising that no one would bat an eye at in a straight alternative rag (basically: boobies good, pecs bad!). Well, do get me started, but not right this second. But, again, criticism is always welcome -- it's just I prefer that it's fair.

What's in your trunk?

When I got a press release at work with a subject line that read "College Hunks Hauling Junk Partners With College Bound" I assumed it was porn (really, the inbox of a gay magazine editor is not for the faint of heart). It was actually this. I'm not sure how they'll handle your junk, but I'm sure you can ask for an estimate.

Man that logo cracks me up -- it looks like they borrowed it from Manhunt.

Right on schedule

Over the weekend I played my first singles and doubles matches of 2006, which means I'm well on track to breaking my "resolutions," in this case Number 8, mostly on Saturday night when a string of really stupid errors caused me to spew a passel of "mother fuckers" and a couple of mild racquet tossings. Naturally, my errors are deeply rooted in my own problems -- letting injuries pull me out of any semblance of a gym routine, falling out of practice, allowing my overly-competitive side to come out to early and too often for what is essentially social tennis. But I won! And that's what counts. Right? OK, fine, it's not all that counts.

But it counts for a lot.

Anyway, I was watching a Champions Tour tennis match between the aging John McEnroe and recently retired Todd Martin earlier this evening, and while his game may have slowed down McEnroe's temper is as obnoxious and off-putting as ever. I'm a much bigger fan of his commentary than his game -- his bellicose harangues of umpires and line judges are every bit as childish as his off court analysis is mature. I only bring this up because my cringing reaction to his tantrums makes me take a closer look at my own behavior on court. The key difference is that I never, ever yell at other people -- I only yell at myself (stuff like, "You stupid mother fucker" or, one of my doubles partner's all-time favorites, "Move your fat fucking feet!"). And I don't do it constantly -- if I'm playing that badly, at some point I simply cross over into a Zen-like state of incompetence. Amazingly enough, resignation often loosens me up and my game improves.

Anyway, my point is, while I'm not one of those people who yell and make nasty comments to their opponents or partners (and we all know who they are), and I make a big joke about my inability to keep my foul mouth in check at times, I think I may need to move that particular resolution from the "mock" column to the "real" column. Because as much as I may protest that it's not that bad, I'm sure someone out there is thinking, God, I wish he'd just shut up and buy a backhand.

Family time

Well, this could be the best news I read all day, assuming no massive airdrop of Xbox360s into my local Best Buy: Manassas, Va., is reportedly ceasing enforcement of a recently enacted ordinance limiting the number of unrelated people who could live in a private home. The execrable legislation was stupid because it went against decades of American experience by defining "nephew" as not-related for living purposes, and it was racist because it was written to get all those Hispanics out of the neighborhood.

I really don't get people sometimes. Anyway, truth, justice and the American way may have prevailed. Or, more likely, it's a brief moment of sanity before somebody in the Virginian exurbs has another bright idea. You take what you can get.

Another year down

As always, my year starts off with a bang. The New Year's party Cavin and I threw went well -- it must have, given that it took me an entire day to recover. I have to remind myself that just because I'm making an apple martini or cosmopolitan for someone else doesn't mean I have to make one for myself as well. A couple of people asked me if I had ever tended bar -- very flattering to a host, of course, but I haven't, outside of bar tending for fraternity alumni cocktail parties back in school, where I learned the basic rule of collegiate bar tending, which is that you can never use too much alcohol. Unless it's tequila. Or gin. Or Kahlua. So, I guess what I'm saying is that you can never use too much vodka. Eh, same difference.

Anyway, after a Sunday of recovery that involved nothing more exerting than watching high-definition Battlestar Galactica (sweet!) it's time to do all those beginning-of-the-year things, starting off by writing a whole bunch of copy about the year that just ended. Once that's done, I can focus on breaking my resolutions, and keeping the vague promises I've made about things such as the gym and eating and organizing my office. Maybe I'll finish up a couple of projects around the house, or finish scanning all my old photos, or weed through all my old possessions to see what can go to charity and what can stay.

Or not.

I will be posting some more first impressions of cars I've been driving for review over the past month. Between the holidays and work, it's been a little difficult to get them in, but with some room to breathe I may actually get them finished. I arrived home last night to find a 2006 Corvette in my driveway, so I'm itching to get out of the office and drive around aimlessly for a while. I doubt anything's going to change from my earlier review of the 'Vette -- I only wish I could get my hands on the Z06. Soon enough, soon enough.