In a recent e-mail exchange with me, NLGJA National Board Member
Steve Rothaus got me thinking about two types of homophobia that
should concern all of us.
Rothaus mentioned news coverage of “Brokeback Mountain,” widely
known as the “gay cowboy film.” Many reporters have asked
whether playing gay — and doing same-sex love scenes — posed
career risks for the film’s leads, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal.
Additionally, recent stories about Felicity Huffman’s role
in “Transamerica” considered the possibility of risks
for playing a male-to-female transsexual.
“Every time a straight actor or actress plays a serious gay
role, the same question is asked,”Rothaus said. "Did
you worry about ruining your career?" Other oft-asked questions: "How
did you prepare yourself for the big sex scene?" and "Were
you sickened by having to kiss so-and-so?"
Rothaus followed with this query: “At what
point do these questions seem gratuitous and perhaps a bit homophobic? ”
I think he has a good point. Journalists’ questions can reflect
internal stereotypes and fears — and, specifically, homophobia
and transphobia. We need to recognize that, and work to make sure
that news gathering isn’t tainted by any level of prejudice
or intolerance.
But Rothaus’ thoughts also made me ponder homophobia
coming from another direction in news coverage. Specifically, how
appropriate
is it to quote interviewees whose ideas
could be considered homophobic?
In October, WorldNetDaily.com excerpted portions of a book, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom," by that site’s managing editor, David Kupelian.
In it, Kupelian rewound to NLGJA’s 10th anniversary convention in San Francisco in 2000. In handing NLGJA a backhanded acknowledgment of our importance and influence — saying we have “grown into a formidable organization” — Kupelian referenced convention attendees’ opinions about issues of balance and handling homophobia in coverage.
For instance, the author quoted NLGJA member Ramon
Escobar: “This
whole issue of ‘balance’ that we as journalists are supposed
to achieve … When we cover the black community, I’ve
never seen a newsroom where you’re covering one side and then
you have to go run out and get the Klan’s point of view.”
And Kupelian quoted member Jeffrey Kofman: “The argument [is]: why
do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and
transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories
when, of course, we don’t do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?”
Lastly, Kupelian cited Paula Madison, then-vice president
of diversity for NBC, who agreed with Kofman. “I don’t see why we
would seek out … the absurd, inane point of view just to get
another point of view.”
Kofman’s follow-up, as related by Kupelian: “All
of us have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes
perspectives on gay issues that include
people who just simply are
intolerant and perhaps not qualified
as well.”
Kupelian’s conclusion? He suggests that mainstream press is “converting
Americans to their world view … A lot of credit for the ‘gay-ing
of America’ can be laid at the door of the news media who,
intentionally or not, have worked in tandem with the movement’s
public relations machinery for years
now.”
To that, I say nonsense. LGBT journalists — including members
of NLGJA — simply want to ensure fair and accurate coverage
that has historically been done with
derision and a lack of respect and understanding. This is about fairness,
something one expects
of journalists covering any minority
community.
Certainly, news organizations have written extensively
about white supremacists and other hate groups. For instance, in
October we saw
a flurry of stories about 13-year-old
twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede, who use entertainment to promote the
supremacist movement (“Young
singers spread racist hate,” said a headline on the ABC News
Web site).
But I doubt that any journalist is adding them to
a source contact list for bringing “balance” to future
stories about reparations, interracial marriage, the Holocaust
or immigration. That same ethic
needs to extend to LGBT coverage, too.
The bottom line is that all journalists must take
greater care not only in how they frame their own questions, but
also in determining
who they’ll interview. Journalists must start rethinking the
appropriateness of both questions and
answers.
