What I intended to be a simple resignation and explanation seems to have turned into a bit of a media game of ping pong over gay porn as content, the latest round starting with Michael Triplett’s “Does The Gay Media Have A Sex Addiction?” in Mediaite yesterday afternoon, followed by Joe.My.God sharing his thoughts.
So I thought I’d share a few of mine.
I wrote Michael to thank him for doing the piece because, as I said, our community still needs to and wants to have this discussion. What I’ve learned about the discussion is, perhaps unsurprisingly, my readers, by a large majority, don’t find “porn as content” acceptable, and readers at other sites, like, Bilerico, do. That’s not a judgment, merely a statement of fact, no more surprising or judgmental than some folks like Pepsi, and some like Coke.
But the Mediaite piece does, as one commenter put it quite well (and, full disclosure, I do know the commenter,) “conflate sexy ads, about which no one is complaining, with editorial content of a sexual nature, which was the subject of David’s concern.”
To be clear, as many have missed the point, I resigned because I don’t believe in porn-as-content. Sexy ads, OK. Porn as editorial content, not OK. Not in a serious news and opinion site.
That point, unfortunately, appears to have been cloudy, and even blogger Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God, for whom I have great respect, originally missed that. Of the Mediaite piece, Joe, in “How Sexy Is Too Sexy For Gay Blogs?,” first wrote that I quit over a porn ad. He later changed his post to read that it was a editorial piece, not an ad. But when I read Joe’s original piece, there were already 115 comments, so the point was missed by many. Oh well.
I have to hand it to Joe for actually asking the question, as I did of my readers. Joe (wryly!) wrote,
“Is JMG too porn-ish? Do you tend to dismiss an LGBT activism site as non-serious if they occasionally veer into sexual imagery? Obviously, this is a decades-old dilemma for gay print, but a relatively recent issue for gay blogs which are mostly read at work. Like you are doing right now.”
Back to my comments to the author of the Mediaite piece. I trust Michael won’t mind if I share with you some of my comments to him. Here’s a portion:
Most of all, I wish the discussion had veered into the issue of perception. If we want to be taken seriously as a community striving for equality, we need more people doing real journalism and not packaging it in between pornographic “editorial” content.
I think, and perhaps appropriately for the venue, you looked at the issue from, as you put it, “reality.”
“The reality, however, is that sites with a large gay male following like a little sexy with their news.”
I’ve always worked from the perspective of not trying to do what is expected, but what is possible. And I believe far more in journalism and in credibility and integrity than in “sexy pictures.”
Does sex sell? Of course. But that’s the easy way out. To me, and to many I know, quality, credibility, honesty, integrity, and working hard to achieve our equality is a lot sexier.
I’ll leave it at that.
OK, one last point.
Thank you. Thank you to everyone who emailed me, tweeted me, commented on this blog, DM’d me, texted me, called me, and offered their support. I am so very grateful for the wonderful readers I have here, and friends I have on Twitter and Facebook, and of course, in “real life.” Thank you for supporting me and my work and my goals, and thank you for sharing my work with others. That is a compliment so gratifying you cannot imagine.
{ 4 comments }
I agree, I think its a problem that every(most), gay sites do that. I dont understand, I also thin its backstepping on our trying issues..we are perceived as overly sexed in the media already, Lesbians and Gay men included
David, I agree with you on this issue. It's a matter of perception, credibility, and integrity. There is a difference between TMZ and CNN for a reason: one is known as a sensationalist gossip rag, the other as a news organization. You can't have it both ways. If you want to insert soft-core porn or salacious editorials as content, fine. Just don't be suprised when no one takes anything else you have to say seriously.
Way back when, comedienne Elaine Boosler used to do a bit about women who would pose in nudie mags and then try to make a serious name for themselves in the public eye. Doesn't work. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Don't resort to cheap attention stunts. The same can be said of Glenn Beck and his ilk; instead of sex, he uses fear mongering. Cheap tactic. Gets him eyeballs and attention, but not a whole lot of respect from anyone but his loyal base.
Continued…
Perhaps Bilerico is content to just preach to the choir and doesn't care whether other communities besides the gay one take it seriously. Which is fine. A lot of gay entertainment sites cater solely to the gay community and when I want to see women making out, I go there.
But if your goal is to get your message out and affect change, then inserting salacious drivel in between thought-provoking editorials isn't the way to go. I think Bilerico has a bit of an identity crisis. It's not sure whether it wants to be an entertainment site or a commentary/activist site. Maybe it wants to be both and offer a one-stop shop to the gay community. If that's the case, then fine. But it needs to recognize that with such a format it will likely negate any goal of affecting change for the GLBT community at large.
I'm the sort to always tout one saying or another. Most phrases catch on for purely common sense reasons. In this case " To each his own". I've only written on one other blog (not my own) regarding this. I thought I'd say it here. I think it was just a matter of perception. Nothing to do with being a prude. You and Bil see things differently. You had a perception about his site that didn't mesh with what it became to you. People (and their sites) are prone to change. Hell, I'm seen as a prude by many. Yes, I watch porn,yes I love sex. They have a place in my life…but not on my blog. Its fine for others, each does in his or her "house what they want". Doesn't mean I won't talk to anyone who doesn't watch porn. That woudl be ridiculous. I realy hope that you guys can come to some sort of "agree to disagree" and don't let it ruin your relationship. My best wishes to you both.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }