Giving Up On Old Media

When I read that Out and The Advocate had been saved by a gay mogul, I thought that was a good thing. Now, I'm not so sure. Paul Colichman plans to revamp the magazines, making them (especially The Advocate) less celebrity-driven. I've got news for you, buddy—all magazines are celebrity-driven. Unless you want to be the gay National Review or something, and make 10% of its already piddling revenues. Moving away from celebrities = moving away from a readership that is already moving away from you.

Paul Colichman, Hill-Raiser.

Then comes word that Colichman is so disappointed Barack Obama even attended a gathering of Evangelicals, where he stated his definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that he tore up a check he'd planned to send to the campaign and is withholding his support.

That stance is completely stupid. For one thing, Colichman was an ardent Hillary supporter. I seem to remember Hillary saying the same damn thing about marriage, and I seem to remember her husband having something to do with the Defense Of Marriage Act. I also recall rumors that Bill Clinton had advised John Kerry to come out strongly in favor of amending the Constitution to "protect" the traditional definition of marriage, if only to renege later. I didn't throw the Clintons under the bus then, and I don't see why any gay person should throw Obama there now. I know, Hillary didn't reallllly believe that stuff, she was just saying it to get elected, right? Probably, yeah. But why wouldn't the same apply to Barack? There is no answer because I think he's as pro-gay as Hillary.

But beyond that, to be a progressive and to childishly withhold support over a single issue, as if there will ever be a candidate who is 100% gay-friendly (what would that person have to be? a lesbian minister who marries gay people on the weekends?) and yet who is capable of winning the support of more than half of the country's voters.

It's an "old" way of thinking, an all-or-nothing threshold that has never, ever worked for progressives. It's Ralph Nader. It's the ERA. Pick your fucking battles. Have the Clintons taught you nothing? Be smart.

Knowing such idiocy is behind whatever the new Out and Advocate will be like—and I certainly support his right to an opinion—my own opinion is that I'll have a hard time getting jazzed about buying the magazines. Maybe I'll write a subscription check and then withhold it until I get my way?

On the same theme, I'm over CNN. Watching their coverage of the Democratic National Convention, I was reminded why the Netroots like to bash the MSM. Nancy Pelosi, not a great speaker (for Speaker Of The House!), is nonetheless a Democratic star who apparently made some strong points about Barack Obama vs. John McCain—but the only reason I know that is from reading her remarks online. CNN talked over her speech, allowing Clinton confidante and wingnut-spouse James Carville to ramble on incessantly about what a lousy first night it was. Oh, aside from the terrific Teddy Kennedy and that terrific Michelle Obama. What else do you want? What they want is to have a story, to peddle the negative, to create the narrative. That's not news, that's an all-news channel, where space must be filled even when stories do not exist to fill it.

And there's good old Anderson Cooper sitting in the middle of the proceedings, doing his best to seem impartial by playing Republican's advocate.

I'm going to pass on CNN and do my best to watch the remaining speeches on whichever network seems to be keeping their mouths shut while the Democrats are speaking. Hillary, I'll have to watch live because if she doesn't have some true zingers about McCain it will be proof she is a sore loser. The rest, I'll hunt for on YouTube, where presumably those who upload them will have an out-with-the-old attitude and will have cut out the commentary before and after.

It's an "old" way of thinking, an all-or-nothing threshold that has never, ever worked for progressives. It's Ralph Nader. It's the ERA. Pick your fucking battles. Have the Clintons taught you nothing? Be smart.

Knowing such idiocy is behind whatever the new Out and Advocate will be like—and I certainly support his right to an opinion—my own opinion is that I'll have a hard time getting jazzed about buying the magazines. Maybe I'll write a subscription check and then withhold it until I get my way?

On the same theme, I'm over CNN. Watching their coverage of the Democratic National Convention, I was reminded why the Netroots like to bash the MSM. Nancy Pelosi, not a great speaker (for Speaker Of The House!), is nonetheless a Democratic star who apparently made some strong points about Barack Obama vs. John McCain—but the only reason I know that is from reading her remarks online. CNN talked over her speech, allowing Clinton confidante and wingnut-spouse James Carville to ramble on incessantly about what a lousy first night it was. Oh, aside from the terrific Teddy Kennedy and that terrific Michelle Obama. What else do you want? What they want is to have a story, to peddle the negative, to create the narrative. That's not news, that's an all-news channel, where space must be filled even when stories do not exist to fill it.

And there's good old Anderson Cooper sitting in the middle of the proceedings, doing his best to seem impartial by playing Republican's advocate.

I'm going to pass on CNN and do my best to watch the remaining speeches on whichever network seems to be keeping their mouths shut while the Democrats are speaking. Hillary, I'll have to watch live because if she doesn't have some true zingers about McCain it will be proof she is a sore loser. The rest, I'll hunt for on YouTube, where presumably those who upload them will have an out-with-the-old attitude and will have cut out the commentary before and after.

Comments

[Shaun]

The CNN coverage was terrible! I was also annoyed with them talking over Pelosi.
And what is up with them being basically on the floor of the convention? Couldn't they get a booth up higher? I found it hard to watch the CNN commentators with with a bunch of yahoo convention people in background waving to friends while talking on their cell phone. "Hey can you see me? I'm on TV? wow! Can you see me talking to you right now!" idiots!

[Hayofray]

I am for The Advocate being less celebrity driven. I am sick of the interviews of straight celebrities with the same old tired questions about their personal thoughts on homosexuality. They're being interviewed by a gay magazine - you think they're going to say homophobic? But more than that, I am tired of The Advocate "honoring" people that don't deserve it. Case in point, Diana Ross had a cover issue and interview during which she revealed she had no idea who Matthew Shepard was. That is not a gay ally, that is a person making money off of gay dollars but detached from gay issues. And that's our hero(ine)? Honor people who fight with us, not just profit from us.

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Diana Ross, yes, but I think those magazines can still use "celebrity" intelligently to sell their magazine. For example, the gay swimmer Matthew Mitcham on the latest Advocate addresses the reality of sales (cute, young, shirtless guy) AND politics (openly gay). Maybe if they're monthly now (that is the plan) and only have to come up with 12 cover subjects, it will be easier to hit home runs like that.

[Tommy]

First, C-Span was the only channel that was showing all of the speakers without interruption - MSNBC was nearly as bad as CNN (though they did not talk over Speaker Pelosi ...) But on the main topic, the Advocate is no longer relevant, and frankly is mis-named. Both Clinton and Obama stated their position (that marriage is a man and a woman, and gays should have civil unions) long before that interview. If this guy is so out of touch, then I fear there is no hope for the magazine. I was thinking about not renewing my subscription after their atrocious coverage of the Lawrence King killing, and this pretty much ends my interest in them.

[Josh]

You can watch live convention speeches (presumably without the commentary) at the Dem Convention website: http://www.demconvention.com