My big gay fight with "The Gay City News"
A transcript of my recent big gay fight with The Gay City News.
_________
1st Letter: in response to their endorsement of Ferrer, flanked by huge banner ads for Bloomberg. http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_443/letterfromtheeditor.html
To: editor@gaycitynews.com
Subject: How do you know Bloomberg is lying? His lips are moving.
Dear Gay City News,
While I applaud your principled support of Fernando Ferrer for Mayor of New York City, there might not have been the need for such spitting into the wind support if you had not been running banner ads for Michael Bloomberg on your Web site for as long as I can remember (an enormous Bloomberg ad even runs on your Ferrer endorsement page, come on!). Advertising has, alas, become editorial. The LGBTQ community would have been better served if you had run this rather potent analysis of Bloomberg's lipservice to full equality rather than accepting his hush money (or advertising moneys from any other candidate, for that matter). Given your critique of billionaire Bloomberg's stance against a fairly financed campaign and the implication therein that the current mayor is a candidate who thinks he can spend and spin his way out of *actually* sticking up for our community, I had expected a little more insight and editorial oversight. What's going on over there?
Best wishes,
The Provident Cat
___________________________
Their 1st Response
From: Gay City News [mailto:editor@gaycitynews.com]
Sent: Mon 10/31/2005 3:19 PM
To: TheProvidentCat
Subject: RE: How do you know Bloomberg is lying? His lips are moving.
*****,
Need I explain the way advertising sales works in newspapers? We sell advertising space to all comers, except clearly inappropriate ones.
I don't know what your business is, but how often have you walked into your boss' office and suggested killing a specific revenue stream?
We clearly have an editorial stance insulated from our advertising department. I have no input there. They have no input on my work.
Our news reporting on this race would not have had a great deal of credibility if we had decided up front... 'oh, this is someone whose money we can't take.' You are asking us to do something that NO BUSINESS would do.
Our policy is really quite simple and it is followed by every reputable news outlet out there. Why isn't your ire focused on those who will not support Ferrrer, or have done only trivial coverage of the race. There are many such media outlets out there. I am very proud of the work we have done on this race.
I think your criticism is wildly misplaced. I really don't think you have thought this issue out very well.
DO you wish this to run as a letter to the editor? If so please tell me where you are writing from... neighborhood, borough, city, country, whatever. Also, for confirmation purposes only, please send a phone number.
Paul Schindler
_____________________________________
Paul Schindler, editor in chief
Gay City News
Their 2nd Response
From: Gay City News [editor@gaycitynews.com]
Sent: Mon 10/31/2005 3:27 PM
To: TheProvidentCat
Subject: RE: How do you know Bloomberg is lying? His lips are moving.
By the way, how in the world can you call it hush money, when we clearly went against him in our editorial?
Paul
_____________________________________
Paul Schindler, editor in chief
Their 3rd Response
From: Troy Masters [troy@spamarrest.com]
Sent: Mon 10/31/2005 3:04 PM
To: TheProvidentCat
This person has no point to make. Anyone can buy an ad...Freddy didn't spend the $30 he could have to keep Bloomberg's ads off our site...perhaps Freddy needs a lesson in marketing.
My Final Reply to Their Reply
Dear Gay City News,
Thanks for your prompt, if not terrifically polite, reply to my letter. I apologize if you interpreted my sincere questions and attempts at a playful tone (hence my paraphrase of Reggie Jackson for my e-mail’s title) as ire, that was not my intent. Let me simply remark that it behooves newspapers not to respond to mild criticism and inquiry with defensive (offensive?) rhetorical questioning. Having formerly worked in editorial and having had to respond to actual vitriol and impressive stupidity, might I add that the use of all caps, anywhere, is generally a sign that you have lost perspective and are no longer engaged in meaningful dialogue? While you have succeeded in nay-saying my argument (your nasty and condescending note fits that bill), I was not, in fact, trying to have an argument with you.
As a frequent reader of _The Gay City News_, I know and acknowledge that your newspaper has done a remarkable job covering New York City’s mayoral race this year. And, as I wrote in my previous letter, I applaud your recent endorsement of Ferrer for mayor (though my antecedent is not entirely clear, I did, you’ll remember, term it a “rather potent analysis of Bloomberg's lip service to full equality”). At no time did I discredit the entirety of your work covering these candidates. I did, however, and still do have questions about your claim that you, “clearly have an editorial stance insulated from our advertising” -- it is your lack of insight into how these two intersect, rather, that discredits your coverage. While you personally, Paul Schindler, may not have any input into what types of advertisements are placed in your paper, someone in your organization clearly does (Ida Culhane? Troy Masters?); the paper doesn’t make itself. And while your advertisers might not sit down at the keyboard and craft prose with you, the framing of your impressive editorial with a big, flashy banner advertisement for Bloomberg clearly does change its message. It looks like he’s laughing at you.
Let me speak, first, to your claims that you have no input into what ads get placed on your web site and in your paper. Paul Schindler writes, “Need I explain the way advertising sales works in newspapers? We sell advertising space to all comers, except clearly inappropriate ones.” You seem to embrace two contradictory logics here. On the one hand, you say that you take all comers but, on the other, you say, except all inappropriate ones. What constitutes “inappropriate” is the key. If you think Bloomberg’s campaign financing wrong, his moneyed ability to flood the political marketplace problematic and his flip-flopping on the core issue of equality for our community pernicious, why are you enabling his candidacy? A choice, albeit not an editorial one, is being made. Why not, like CBS and NBC television networks, who refused to air the United Church of Christ’s 30-second advertisement because its all-inclusive welcome was "too controversial," deem Bloomberg’s advertisements “inappropriate”? You claim that “NO BUSINESS” would say “'oh, this is someone whose money we can't take',” yet we see everyday in America that there are many businesses that turn down perfectly good, green, gay money whenever they get the chance. Is turnabout fair play? The question merits, at the very least, some debate. Hiding behind the cover of what-type-of-editorial-would-it-be-if-we-decided-beforehand logic doesn’t work here, since your article proves only too well that, during his tenure, Bloomberg has rather consistently failed to take and hold the positions that your organization deems in the best interests of the LGBTQ community; that Bloomberg is bad news for many New Yorkers is not a discovery for _The Gay City News_ -- that’s why we like you.
Moreover, one must note that allowing Bloomberg to advertise is only the _appearance of objectivity_, not actual objectivity, given your assessment that he can afford to advertise, while others cannot. An actual remedy for fairness could follow along the lines of my original suggestion -- accept no advertisements, run profiles and exposes, provide candidates space to outline their history with and plans for our community (versus the sales pitch of an ad) and finally, endorse a candidate. At the very least, one would think you’d remove the Bloomberg ads from the Ferrer endorsement page, if only in the interest of preventing “wildly misplaced” criticism.
I understand fully the necessity for news organizations to generate revenue. It is for this reason that, if in your shoes, I would suggest killing off the Bloomberg stream. I don’t know what business *you* think you are in, but a significant part of your organization’s ability to profit rests upon your credibility with the LGBTQ community and your ability to forcefully and faithfully represent our so-called best interests. When you take money from known bigots (certainly there are worse than Bloomberg, I admit, but he’s the one in question here), it is only natural that your readers and members of this community would question your motives and credibility. From what candidates would you _not_ accept ads? Would you accept advertisements from Santorum? From Bush? If this is the case, don’t be surprised when candidates opt to forego public financing in favor of massive spending; you’re proving that money opens doors that even a good message and track record cannot.
It is in this sense that you are hushed! Nobody can hear your protestations about Bloomberg’s kowtowing to the radical Republican right over the sound of his money hitting your cash register. Does the Village Voice run its advertisements for underage Asian sex workers on the same page as its muckraking about underage Asian sex workers? No.
I’d also like to point out that in his letter, Troy Masters writes, “Anyone can buy an ad...Freddy didn't spend the $30 he could have to keep Bloomberg's ads off our site...perhaps Freddy needs a lesson in marketing.” Why didn’t your editorial mention that about Freddy? That he ran a poorly financed and planned campaign?
Surely, there are other media outlets that have failed to stick up for the gays. I write to them, too. But does this mean that I can’t be disappointed or question a glaring irony? When _The Gay City News_, knowing so much better what the issues are and what’s at stake, won’t say no to Bloomberg’s measly 30 bucks on our behalf, who will? I’ll send you a check for $30 now, if you’ll take those ads down.
Best wishes,
The Provident Cat
P.S. You can print my letters, if you’ll print yours, too.
posted by ProvidentCat @ 7:19 AM
0 comments
