Michael Bronski
While
the Bush administration is considering a possible reversal of the Microsoft
antitrust case activists in the gay and lesbian community are debating their own
looming monopoly problems.
Three
weeks ago, Henry Scott, the former owner of Out magazine sent a letter to over
200 queer activists: "I am writing because, as a leader in the lesbian and
gay community, you have an opportunity to help halt an effort to create a
dangerous monopoly among gay media."
This
isn’t Microsoft, but Scott’s letter contained some alarming facts. Last April
Los Angeles based Liberation Publications (LPI), which publishes the Advocate
bought its biggest competitor New York based Out magazine. Between the
Advocate’s circulation of 88,000 and Out’s of 112,000 Liberation Publications
Inc’s two front-line magazines now garnered a joint circulation of 200,000,
which is estimated to be five times greater than its closest rival publication.
Last February Planet Out announced that it was going to merge with LPI, a deal
which is still in the works. But this news was eclipsed by the November 15
bombshell that PlanetOut and Gay.com – the two largest Internet companies that
target queer viewers and readers – were going to merge. In a public letter the
two firms stated: "The services of the two largest businesses serving the
LGBT market will create a global media and services company that immediately
reaches more than 3.5 million unique individuals a month and counts more than
1.6 registered users."
The
gay marriage of PlanetOut and Gay.com leaves Gaywired.com, with 500,000 unique
monthly users, as the next largest gay media outlet. And these figures don’t tak
into consideration that in 1996 LPI had purchased the Boston based Alyson
Publications, one of the oldest and respected gay and lesbian trade book
publisher, or that in March 1999 PlanetOut subsumed OnQ, a large queer on-line
service, and last August bought into Gay Financial Network (gfn.com) and is now
jointly selling advertising with them.
Scott’s
solution to this scenario is to bring in the big guns of anti-trust legislation
and he urged that anyone concerned with an independent gay and lesbian media
contact the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy and Evaluation/ Bureau of
Competition to complain. Both agencies are, under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
with scrutinizing mergers to name sure that they do not "lessen
competition, or …then to create monopolies."But what are the chances of
the Feds stepping in too insure a free market for all queer voices? Probably
pretty slim.
Nevertheless
there are a host of signals that gay activists and media watchers find
disturbing in this ongoing chain of events. Last November Andrew Sullivan, the
openly gay, staunch conservative former editor of the New Republic and columnist
for the New York Times Magazine, complained publicly about what he saw as the
Advocate’s fawning cover interview with Bill Clinton. This prompted Advocate
editor Judy Weider to cancel Sullivan’s upcoming piece on AIDS claiming "if
we have Andrew write while he’s tearing down the Advocate, it makes it look like
we agree with his point of view." Weider’s heavy-handed approach to
political disagreements was upsetting to queer activists and writers. Andrew
Sullivan does not need the Advocate to make a living, but many queer freelance
writers – most with a far more liberal or leftist bent – do. Intentionally
of not, Weider’s ban on Sullivan (which she claims is temporary) sent the clear
message that disagreements with Advocate editorial policy would not be welcomed
or tolerated.
Even
scarier was the Advocate’s and Weider’s direct involvement with the Millennium
March on Washington last April, and in particular Equality Rocks, big-name March
affiliated concert featuring Melissa Etheridge and George Michael. While many
gay businesses co-sponsored the event both PanetOut and the Advocate were
exceedingly generous – PlanetOut giving the March organizers 250,000 in cash
and 750,000 in kind; the Advocate donating 425,000 in-kind with color ads in 20
issues. Critics have suggested that these organizations’ direct involvement with
an intentional political event might compromise their ability to cover it, but
most egregious was that it was editor Weider herself who was on the production
team of Equality Rocks. Wearing the duel hats of deciding on editorial copy –
both Etheridge and Michael has been featured on the cover of the Advocate — and
working on a benefit connected to political groups that her magazine must cover
Weider clearly violated basic journalist ethics.
This
points to the most problematic aspect of a national gay and lesbian media that
is increasingly owned by increasingly consolidated business interests. By
working hand-in-hand with the political, legal, and social groups that they are
reporting on both the Advocate and PlanetOut as well as the groups are
continually caught in two distinct conflicts on interest. The obvious question:
will the Advocate or PlanetOut be able to report honestly on political groups
whom they institutionally support. But this problem is compounded by conflict of
interest faced by the political groups. It costs a lot of money to do any
politics – and gay and lesbian politics, with a small constituency who are
asked repeatedly for money, are an even harder fund raising nut to crack.
Sponsorship from gay owned businesses have become increasingly necessary to
these fund raising efforts: Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force, The Victory Fund, and many large AIDS groups across the nation have
all relied on corporate funding, and the main queer funding sources has been
PlanetOut, Gay.com, and the Advocate/LPI. No matter what kind of job the
Advocate and PlanetOut is doing with their reporting none of these groups are in
a position to criticize them or hold them to a higher standard of journalism.
Ironically
the strength of the gay and lesbian press and media in this country has been its
fragmentation and its marginality. From the early 1970s a burgeoning national
press – the Advocate as well as other publications, many of whom have folded
– have been augmented by a strong and thriving local press which promoted a
variety of social and political opinions, agendas, and attitudes. From bar rags
to middle-of-the-road liberal to leftist leanings these publications – based
in cities and generally free of the both the gains and the pressures of national
advertising – were an independent voice for a wide range of politics. It was
these publications that provided a necessary critique of both national
organizations and publications. While there are still some city-based newspapers
that do original reporting many others have folded, and even those that still
exist increasingly use pre-packaged AP stories. As the national publications and
the Internet companies began accumulating larger and larger amounts of
readership and advertising many small weekly and monthly papers began to fail.
While their individual importance may have been minimal their overall effect was
hugely consequential. Henry Scott’s use of "monopoly" may seem
overstated, but the reality is that the gay and lesbian press in the U.S. has
become increasingly located in the hands of a few and that will most likely have
dire effects for the entire community.