Journalistic nuance ...
Dear CBS News on LOGO:
1. I know we're all gay here. But I am really tired of seeing pro-Clinton stories on your Web site. An example, "Clinton Steps Back From Sniper Fire Claim" on the Clinton side and "Obama Seduced By A Virgin" on the other.
I really hate to sound like a crackpot here, but I've actually been to journalism school. If you want to bring people in with juiciness ... try something like, "Clinton Misfires With Snipers" to counter the Obama headline or "Obama spends time in Virgins" to counter the Clinton headline. Yeah, neither is particularly juicy in and of themselves, but we're still journalists. Granted, gay journalists, but you have to be impartial at all times.
2. Speaking of which, Etai Hod, god knows my heart has beat for you since you ignored me and my fellow journalism students that Chicago convention in 2005. But this time, you missed the journalistic mark. You mentioned in your story about that homophobic Oklahoma legislator that her first run for her position was only won by 68 percent, but you failed to mention her second run's results. Feel free to sue me for all $.11 I'm worth, but if my memory serves, you also used the qualifier, "only" when describing her first election victory.
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation exists so we can criticize content, instead of method. NLGJA exists to keep us impartial. You can't have it both ways in the aforementioned stories, as journalists.
Just an F.Y.I.
3. This is a more crackpot/content rant here.
I couldn't give a shit after swallowing a jar full of laxatives about the "Sex in the City" girls. I mean, really, what kind of queerism do they represent? Probably of the 1950s and 60s-variety where we, as gay men, "get" to espouse which character we are most like! Boo!
Is it just me, or is CBS pressuring you poor boys to push as many corporate junkets as possible? As far as I'm concerned, "Sex and the City" is sooo last decade. I'm still trying to figure out which, realistic blend of a Ted and which, idealistic version of Michael that I am from "Queer As Folk," a real, white, gay show.
I really couldn't care, as a poor, Gaytive, which version of a straight, white, Manhattanite woman I am. Their press material may pander to us as gays, big production and big stars, but during the series' run, did you ever see Stanton get it on or Anthony find true happiness?
Of course not. We're just heteropomorphized gays for the straights' benefit, castrated and devoid of actual sexuality. Even when Stanton and Anthony got set up, both of their lilies wilted. Removed of any, actual gay attraction that may have existed between them. ("Ethnic" types and baldies do come together in our community, despite your shallow definitions of gay men ... how else would you explain my last relationship?)
And, finally, I come to the end of my sub-rant.
The only episode of "Sex and the City" (that I've seen) to cover Trans issues was handled not just insensitively, but unrealistically. In the one episode, the Transwomen were portrayed as hookers in Samantha's neighborhood, keeping her from her "MUCH-needed" beauty sleep (a 73 year-old needs every moment to themselves, or so my septuagenarian father tells me) by "fake" women! In the end, the Samantha character was reduced to bitch-fighting with the "fake" women and illustrating her genetic, female superiority by throwing a pot full of water upon the Transwoman prostitute and thereby, uncovering her unsecured weave.
Unrealistic on SOOO many levels.
All in all, CBS News on LOGO, a bad week and badly shown.
1. I know we're all gay here. But I am really tired of seeing pro-Clinton stories on your Web site. An example, "Clinton Steps Back From Sniper Fire Claim" on the Clinton side and "Obama Seduced By A Virgin" on the other.
I really hate to sound like a crackpot here, but I've actually been to journalism school. If you want to bring people in with juiciness ... try something like, "Clinton Misfires With Snipers" to counter the Obama headline or "Obama spends time in Virgins" to counter the Clinton headline. Yeah, neither is particularly juicy in and of themselves, but we're still journalists. Granted, gay journalists, but you have to be impartial at all times.
2. Speaking of which, Etai Hod, god knows my heart has beat for you since you ignored me and my fellow journalism students that Chicago convention in 2005. But this time, you missed the journalistic mark. You mentioned in your story about that homophobic Oklahoma legislator that her first run for her position was only won by 68 percent, but you failed to mention her second run's results. Feel free to sue me for all $.11 I'm worth, but if my memory serves, you also used the qualifier, "only" when describing her first election victory.
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation exists so we can criticize content, instead of method. NLGJA exists to keep us impartial. You can't have it both ways in the aforementioned stories, as journalists.
Just an F.Y.I.
3. This is a more crackpot/content rant here.
I couldn't give a shit after swallowing a jar full of laxatives about the "Sex in the City" girls. I mean, really, what kind of queerism do they represent? Probably of the 1950s and 60s-variety where we, as gay men, "get" to espouse which character we are most like! Boo!
Is it just me, or is CBS pressuring you poor boys to push as many corporate junkets as possible? As far as I'm concerned, "Sex and the City" is sooo last decade. I'm still trying to figure out which, realistic blend of a Ted and which, idealistic version of Michael that I am from "Queer As Folk," a real, white, gay show.
I really couldn't care, as a poor, Gaytive, which version of a straight, white, Manhattanite woman I am. Their press material may pander to us as gays, big production and big stars, but during the series' run, did you ever see Stanton get it on or Anthony find true happiness?
Of course not. We're just heteropomorphized gays for the straights' benefit, castrated and devoid of actual sexuality. Even when Stanton and Anthony got set up, both of their lilies wilted. Removed of any, actual gay attraction that may have existed between them. ("Ethnic" types and baldies do come together in our community, despite your shallow definitions of gay men ... how else would you explain my last relationship?)
And, finally, I come to the end of my sub-rant.
The only episode of "Sex and the City" (that I've seen) to cover Trans issues was handled not just insensitively, but unrealistically. In the one episode, the Transwomen were portrayed as hookers in Samantha's neighborhood, keeping her from her "MUCH-needed" beauty sleep (a 73 year-old needs every moment to themselves, or so my septuagenarian father tells me) by "fake" women! In the end, the Samantha character was reduced to bitch-fighting with the "fake" women and illustrating her genetic, female superiority by throwing a pot full of water upon the Transwoman prostitute and thereby, uncovering her unsecured weave.
Unrealistic on SOOO many levels.
All in all, CBS News on LOGO, a bad week and badly shown.