COMMENTARY: Is leading gay media watchdog GLAAD muzzled by the entertainment companies it’s supposed to police?
After Adam Lambert’s now-infamous performance at the American Music Awards led ABC to nix the pop star from at least three subsequent live appearances, you’d think that the bulk of gay anger would be directed at the network and its parent company, Disney. Provocative acts are the currency of pop music, and Madonna and Britney locked lips years ago. Lambert, it seemed, was subject to a different set of rules.
But in the wake of the controversy that erupted, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation emerged as a primary target, criticized throughout the LGBT blogosphere for its feeble, inconsistent response. After first calling the network’s decision “disappointing,” the group sent out an update that seemed to defend ABC, followed by confusing statements that sought to clarify its position. Suddenly GLAAD’s foggy raison d’être became even less clear. What, exactly, is this group’s role, and how do its various missions conflict?
At the heart of the controversy is a simple fact: GLAAD solicits money from networks and entertainment companies and then hands them awards for what the organization deems positive media representation of the LGBT community. (In 2009, ABC actually led rival networks with its number of nominees.) Media companies receiving the awards—many of which often engage in or perpetuate the very bias and defamation that GLAAD crusades against—sponsor the celebrity-strewn benefits and underwrite the performances in return for branding opportunities and choice tables. This fund-raising dynamic developed over time and, according to former staffers, accounts for a large percentage of the group’s money—sort of like a drug habit it just can’t shake. And also like a drug habit, this setup enormously compromises the group: What kind of effective watchdog takes money from the industry it polices? Imagine the ineffectiveness of a congressional watchdog group taking money from House and Senate members.
GLAAD’s board of directors includes veteran film producers, media executives, entertainment attorneys, and other power players—a necessity, some may argue, to maintain relationships with those most capable of effecting change within Hollywood. I don’t doubt these individuals’ commitments. But while putting insiders on the board may have been helpful in the 1990s, it seems less so in an age when gay people are omnipresent in media and entertainment, often in positions of great influence. From Ellen DeGeneres and Rachel Maddow to Neil Patrick Harris and Adam Lambert himself, visibility of out gay people in media and pop culture is at an all-time high. LGBT characters and cast members are common in prime-time dramas like ABC’s Brothers & Sisters, daytime soaps, and myriad reality shows. This is no accident; we are, after all, a desirable advertising demographic.
Follow us on Twitter. 
Follow us on Facebook.
Page 1 of 3