I agree with the critique of GLAAD’s elitism, but the critics seem to be sidestepping an unavoidable conclusion: The GLAAD Media Awards need to be halted, or at the very least, radically pared down, immediately, while the gay movement still has some integrity left. A group that began in the 80s as a fiery organization committed to direct action against media bias has turned into a high-priced masseuse for Hollywood and media titans alike, offering full ejaculatory release. The last thing that my gay media colleagues should be demanding is some of that masturbatory pleasure for themselves. What we really need to do is get GLAAD out of the hand-job business entirely.

...

GLAAD appears to have little choice at this point but to highly promote its Media Awards because they are now the group’s main source of funding, according to Here! TV's Stephen Macias, who was once GLAAD’s entertainment director and who appeared on my radio program recently. The awards dinners, at which film and media companies buy up tables, are a huge cash cow, bringing in almost 4 million dollars a year.

GLAAD doesn’t seem to be giving out so many awards – 183 nominees this year by their count, including one for, yes, Grey’s Anatomy – because so many people actually deserve them. Rather, they need the money that doling out awards brings in. Why else are they holding the awards in four cities at four events spanning two months? Is it not in fact that those cities happen to be places inhabited by a lot of gay people with money who can fork over cash to hobnob with celebrities?

This is all a far cry from an organization that began in 1985, when activists led by the groundbreaking film critic and activist Vito Russo, the author of The Celluloid Closet who died from AIDS in 1990, protested outside the New York Post to end the paper’s hateful coverage of AIDS and distortion of gay lives. It seems that GLAAD’s only homage to Russo’s firebrand activism today is a glitzy award named after him, handed out at their annual sycophantic lovefest.

And then people wonder why we are still so abused and mistreated in the American media.

After all, GLAAD is not the gay television or motion picture academy or the queer Pulitzer Prize committee. It’s an advocacy group with a mission: to push for fair, accurate and inclusive portrayals of LGBT people in the media.

Macias took special umbrage at the idea that the good work done by here!TV isn’t covered by that mission, but why should he? A gay TV network is primarily gay people portraying gay people for the viewing pleasure of other gay people. Why should they require an advocacy group to give them credit for doing that job particularly well? It is fundamentally what they do.

The GLAAD Media Awards recognize and honor mainstream media for their fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and the issues that affect their lives.

"The GLAAD Board of Directors made the determination to continue the focus of the Media Awards on mainstream media last year after this same issue was raised by the folks at Logo. A special ad hoc committee of the board met several times and then made a recommendation to the full board of directors. It was a long and thorough discussion that the board had at that time, and all views were aired. In addition, I am aware that some members of the LGBT media did contact members of the GLAAD board to discuss the issue. This is the view they aligned with after much review, so this remains the approach of the GLAAD Media Awards program at this time. Of course, any board action/direction is subject to further review/action by a future board and I suspect the overall issue will continue to come forward. Personally, I think we should work to create a way to recognize LGBT-focused media, and am hopeful someday we will do so."

As I replied to you in our response, we completely disagree with the organization's position. Our request was simple, to be allowed to submit our programming to be judged on its merits, not on its origin. GLAAD's position of excluding a television network that serves the gay and lesbian audience is counterproductive to its mission statement and an archaic interpretation of its application in the new media space. The mission statement does not include the word "mainstream" anywhere in it, nor is it comforting to know GLAAD is defining "mainstream" and gay as mutually exclusive places to be in American culture.

Media has changed dramatically over the years because of the blood, sweat, and tears of brave LGBT activists, yet GLAAD has not adjusted its policies and strategies to account for this as it relates to the high profile Media Awards. In the absence of strategic change from GLAAD, the organization's largest event is on the verge of becoming irrelevant and the millions of dollars raised wasted when LGBT Americans need strong leadership more than ever.

Of the Here network, the less said the better. If you purchase most of their offerings you’re asked to pay $3.95 for, you’re a sucker. Most of their films are gaysploitation idiocies where the writing is dreadful and the acting is worse—that’s especially true of a particularly leaden horror soap opera they’ve produced called “Dante’s Cove”—and only about one in 10 are watchable. And their idea of a talk show is that indigestible endorser of Republicans, Elizabeth Birch, talking to Pat Buchanan. How enlightening. I’m not going There.

When one considers what gay TV could be, and then spends any time looking at what it is, all that’s been proven is that gay TV can be even more repellently mediocre than straight commercial television. And we’re supposed to call that progress.

What's next, some queer "infiltrator" named Luigi cited as proof of the "gay mafia"?

...the whole thing sounds farcical, at best.

On February 28, local ABC24 and CW30 affiliates in Memphis, Tenn., perpetuated dangerous, inaccurate stereotypes in their evening news report on 'lesbian gangs.' The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was first alerted to the story when ...[folks] called to complain about a problematic ...[news promo].

The teaser, aired during February “sweeps” month, foreshadowed the familiar defamatory script in which a local news reporter relies on tabloid-style journalism and anecdotal claims....

...[T]he stations' general manager and assistant news director... agreed to show GLAAD the segment before it aired.

The report we saw was shockingly defamatory. The story dramatized “Gays Taking Over,” a group of African American women preying on other women. The principal interview subject, a so-called “gang expert” employed by the local sheriff’s office, suggested that the sexual harassment and violence the gang allegedly perpetuated [sic.] would make its victims gay. The report offered no evidence to support these assertions, and the station’s general manager admitted to GLAAD that the station had not independently verified its interview subjects’ claims.