Subject: MEDIAlert! - 15 DEC 96
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:31:06 -0500

----------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX:  "MEDIAlert!" for 15 DEC 96

-ITEM 1: "Rate and See" [V-chip; Jack Valenti; Freedom Forum; Paul McMasters;
FCC; Marta Kauffman; Friends; CNN; Children's Defense Fund].

-ITEM 2: "Witless For The Defense" [Rush Limbaugh; Howard Stern; Howard
Kurtz; Washington Post; Carl Rowan; The Coming Race War; FAIR; APA Monitor].

-ITEM 3: "Fault Lines" [Howard Rosenberg; Los Angeles Times; Jenny Jones;
Jonathan Schmitz; Scott Amedure].

-ITEM 4: "Media/Briefs" [QMondo; Gaystlouis.com; Center for Media Literacy;
Lesbian Avengers Civil Rights Organizing Project; Who's In A Family?; Gay &
Lesbian Parents Coalition International; New Media].

-GENERAL INFORMATION [about "MEDIAlerts"].
----------------------------------------------------------------

M   E   D   I   A    l    e    r    t    !
______________________________

December 1-15, 1996    Al Kielwasser

[1]

R A T E  A N D  S E E

Even before its "official" (December 19) release, a new TV ratings code has
generated widespread debate -- again.  Scheduled for introduction at the
start of 1997, the ratings propose to cover all entertainment programming
aired in the U.S and they will be displayed on-air and in program listings.
 In 1988, new "V-chip" technology will be combined with this system, allowing
parents to automatically block all programs that fall into those ratings
categories they deem "inappropriate" for their children.

Under the proposed ratings scheme, individual programs will be evaluated
according to their "suitability" for various audiences.  Likely categories
include:  "TV-K" (suitable for all children), "TV-K7" (for children over 7),
"TV-G" (for general audiences), "TV-PG" (parental guidance suggested),
"TV-14" (parents strongly cautioned), and "TV-M" (mature audiences only).

Responding to early reports of a strictly age-based system, vocal politicians
and advocacy groups called for content-based guidelines that would
specifically warn parents about "sex, violence and profanity."  Press
accounts included dissenting perspectives from various groups, including
religious (Morality in Media), educational (National Parent Teacher
Association) and industry-based concerns (Recreational Software Advisory
Council).  Missing from this mainstream debate has been ANY input from
lesbian or gay representatives, despite the obvious implications this new
system holds for the future of homosexuality -- and homophobia -- on
television.

According to initial guidelines, a "TV-PG" rating would be given to programs
that "may contain some material that some parents would find unsuitable for
younger children."  "TV-M" ("unsuitable" and "too explicit" for children
under 17) would apply to programming with "mature themes."

Unfortunately, MANY parents still find homosexuality PER SE "unsuitable" for
children of any age.  Historically, the networks have concurred.

From PBS to CBS, any and all lesbian or gay themes have been routinely dubbed
"mature subject matter."  If precedent and prejudice hold sway, even
lesbian/gay programs INTENDED for young "TV-K" viewers will get a "TV-PG"
rating.

On CNN's "Crossfire" (Dec. 12) Rep. Edward Markey defended the need for
content-based ratings and equated the V-chip to seat belts or air bags.  The
chips and ratings are simply a "safety tool," Markey said, necessary for
"protecting children from cultural values" opposed by their parents.

The desire to "protect" children from homosexuality is likely to be
acceptable under the current ratings scheme, where other perceived dangers --
like "liberal bias" -- would be suspect.  Although movie codes once warned of
"miscegenation," few politicians today would assert (publicly) the rights of
racist parents who might be interested in protecting their white children
from "The Cosby Show."

The priorities of a "sex-violence-vulgarity" scheme have been defended on the
basis of "simplicity."  Parents can't know everything, the argument goes, but
they can at least know these three things.   Media literacy is hardly
encouraged by such a scheme.

If explicit SEX is easier to rate (and see?) than explicit SEXISM -- or
racism and homophobia -- then perhaps what is needed LEAST is a system for
enabling viewers to block programs.  Money and effort would be better spent
on efforts for empowering CRITICAL VIEWING SKILLS.

Paul McMasters, of the Freedom Forum, is one of a few visible critics to
argue that the real question is not about content-versus-age criteria, but
"whether we should have a ratings system or not."  The real issue is not
parental rights, but parental responsibilities.

Appearing on CNN (Dec. 12), McMasters pointed out that any ratings system
ultimately "relieves parents of their responsibility."  A V-chip based system
would also relieve parents of their OPPORTUNITIES -- to encourage critical
viewing, and raise media literate children.

Whatever their final form, the new television ratings are likely to reflect
the old heterosexist bias that has pervaded EVERY set of media codes.  Geared
to blocking programs with homosexual rather than homophobic themes, the
system will be tuned to the values of a culture in which Pat Robertson's
anti-gay talk is "news," while gays talking on "Geraldo" constitutes
"sleaze."

The executive producer of "Friends" -- one prime-time series that has
included lesbian/gay content -- predicts the worst.  Under the new ratings
regime, says Marta Kauffman, "networks will be less willing to make programs
like 'Friends.'"

Recent polls suggest that more parents are concerned with "sex" than
"violence" on television, and industry time-buyers agree that "sex" warnings
are more likely to discourage advertiser support.  Yet, few critics have
questioned the implications of a system that simply panders to such
sex-negativity or, at worse, encourages those parents who would block all
sexual content but happily dose their children with endless hours of "G.I.
Joe."

Already, gay bashing is more acceptable than gay kissing on prime-time
television.  Some advertisers are willing to support a movie-of-the-week in
which gays are beaten and shown lying in a pool blood.  But even
"progressive" sponsors pull out when the script calls for gay men lying in
bed.

All is not (utterly) hopeless, however.  Kim Wade, of the Children's Defense
Fund, reminds viewers that "there is time before these ratings appear on our
TV screens...  time to get them to be the most useful for parents."

MPAA president Jack Valenti -- who heads up the committee responsible for
developing the new ratings -- also insists there is still time for public
input.  According to Valenti, even after the system is in place, the first
7-12 months will be "experimental."  This time, he claims, will be a period
of "continuous polling."

If the impending ratings system cannot be avoided, it might still be
improved.  We cannot afford to wait and NOT see.

* * * *  ACTION ALERT!:   Send immediate -- and on-going -- feedback to Jack
Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America, 1600 Eye
Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, tel. 202-293-1966, fax 202-293-7674 (or
MPAA, 14144 Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, tel. 818-995-3600);  Hon.
Edward Markey, Telecommunications Subcommittee, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515, tel. 202-224-3121, web www.house.gov/.

Ultimately, any ratings scheme will come up for approval by the FCC, a
government agency (theoretically) responsible for regulating radio/television
industries and defending "the public interest."  Public comment should be
directed to:  The Chair and All Members, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554, tel. 202-418-0200 or 202-632-7000,
e-mail [email-masked].

Paul McMasters is the First Amendment Ombudsman for "Freedom Forum"
[www.nando.net/prof/freedom/1994/freedom.html], an organization which
promotes news diversity, journalism education, and freedom of the press.
 Freedom Forum publishes the "Media Studies Journal" and "Communique," its
monthly newsletter.

[2]

W I T L E S S  F O R  T H E  D E F E N S E

Writing "In Defense of Limbaugh and Stern" (Los Angeles Times, December 2),
syndicated columnist Howard Kurtz denies the existence of media
"hatemongers."  Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern are not bigots in the least.
 According to Kurtz, they are simply benign satirists...  misjudged in "this
hypersensitive age."

Specifically, Kurtz takes issue with Carl Rowan's new book, "The Coming Race
War."  In his book, Rowan includes Limbaugh and Stern on a "Top 10 list of
hatemongering" -- a list dismissively described by Kurtz as "a sort of Hate
Hall of Fame."

"Limbaugh can be bombastic and fiercely partisan and occasionally indulge in
rumor-mongering," Kurtz admits.  "Stern can be rude and crude and
occasionally obliterate the boundaries of good taste."  "But to call them
'hatemongers,' as veteran columnist Carl Rowan does, is unfair," says Kurtz.
 "It also misses the point of what they do and why millions of loyal fans
tune in each day."

According to Kurtz:  "What is most striking about Rowan's assault on Limbaugh
and Stern is that he marshals almost no evidence of their supposedly hateful
appeals.  One is left wondering whether Rowan actually has listened to these
radio loudmouths.  Rowan says Limbaugh is an 'entertainer' who cracks
'wicked, often bigoted, jokes.'  Not a single example is offered, most likely
because there are none."

According to Kurtz, although Stern has "made fun of blacks... Jews, Mexicans,
Filipinos and other racial and ethnic groups," that's just his way of
FIGHTING racism.  With a pronounced Orwellian accent, Kurtz argues:  "Some
people can't stand this sort of satire, but it is more an effort to play off
dumb stereotypes than to perpetuate them. Stern often talks about growing up
in a predominantly black Long Island neighborhood. He has a black sidekick,
Robin Quivers."

As for Limbaugh, Kurtz writes:  "Mostly his show is three hours a day of
mainstream conservatism, in language far more decorous than that heard on
daytime television."  "So where's the hate?," Kurtz sarcastically asks.

"To be sure, some people in this hypersensitive age find almost any satire
offensive, and those who indulge in such sport sometimes cross the line,"
Kurtz concludes.  "But that's a far cry from hatemongering."

Ironically, it is Kurtz who "marshals no evidence" and -- seemingly -- has
not listened well.  Where's the hate?  Well, how about Limbaugh's on-air
"joking" that lesbians mate with pigs "in order to perpetuate the race?"  Or
his repeated assertions that gay men are "not normal?"  These (and numerous
other instances) seem more like hatemongering than humor, especially when
headlines continue to announce the stories of queers who are assaulted by
those who consider them less-than-human.

In the wake of what some social scientists have deemed an "epidemic of hate
crimes against gay people" ("APA Monitor," June 1995), it is simply
unacceptable for any journalist to write as if homophobia -- and its
consequences -- do not exist.  "It's very complicated," says psychologist
Gregory Herek, "but I do think that it's society's homophobia, or
heterosexism, that fosters these crimes, because they set up gay people as
targets... not valued greatly and somewhat acceptable to attack."

* * * *  ACTION ALERT!:   Encourage Kurtz to listen (and learn); send
feedback to Howard Kurtz, "The Washington Post," 1150 15th Street NW,
Washington, DC, 20071, e-mail [email-masked].  Comments can also be
sent to Leonard Downie, Editor-In-Chief, "The Washington Post," 1150 15th
Street NW, Washington, DC, 20071, e-mail [email-masked];  Shelby
Coffey, Editor-in-Chief, "Los Angeles Times," Times Mirror Square, Los
Angeles, CA 90053, fax 213-237-4712, e-mail [email-masked].

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has documented several instances of
Limbaugh's racism and homophobia.  In a special report ("The Way Things
Aren't:  Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality," EXTRA!, July/August, 1994) and
subsequent book-length review ("The Way Things Aren't:  Rush Limbaugh's Reign
of Error"), FAIR offers options for responding to Limbaugh and the like.
 Contact:  FAIR, 130 W. 25th Street, New York, NY 10001, tel. 212-633-6700,
fax 212-727-7668, web www.fair.org/fair/.

[For a brief "clinical" overview of hate violence, see Peter Freiberg's
article "Psychologists Examine Attacks on Homosexuals," American
Psychological Association Monitor, June 1995]. 

[3]

F A U L T  L I N E S

Amidst continuing critical fallout from the so-called "Talk Show Murder," one
of the most recent efforts is also one of the worst.  In a column titled
"Talk-Show Hosts Who Shirk The Blame" (Dec. 6), Howard Rosenberg --
television critic for the "Los Angeles Times" -- finds absolutely no fault
with homophobia.  The only guilty party in this case, says Rosenberg, is the
"Jenny Jones" show -- and "its mother lode of human wreckage."

Rosenberg argues that Jenny Jones' efforts "to escape culpability in the
murder of [Jonathan] Schmitz's victim, Scott Amedure, was the lone comical
window in this otherwise grim saga of talk-show hell, one initiated by a
joint appearance of the two men during a 1995 taping of the syndicated
daytime series that bears Jones' name."  He concludes:  "If not for [the
episode about] 'Same-Sex Secret Crushes,' Amedure would be alive today and
Schmitz would not be behind bars."

According to Rosenberg:  "The ultimately lethal episode found the gay Amedure
hugging and publicly revealing his own crush on Schmitz, a man who said he
was heterosexual and whose background neither Jones nor her staff had
bothered to check before springing Amedure on him in front of the cameras and
studio audience.  If they had, they would have learned that he had a history
of severe mental problems.  So severe that three days after the taping,
Schmitz brought a 12-gauge shotgun to the mobile home of Amedure, who was
only a casual acquaintance, and shot him to death."

Rosenberg adds, in apparent sympathy with the murderer:  "At least the
shooter announced in court Wednesday that he was 'sorry,' a word yet to
surface in the vocabularies of Jones and her associates....  Schmitz's
diminished-capacity defense during his trial... rested on his claim that he
was publicly humiliated and driven over the edge by the Jones taping....
 Still, the jury found him guilty of second degree murder (it could have
voted for manslaughter or first degree)...."

"Although he appears gracious in the widely shown footage of his encounter
with Amedure during the taping," says Rosenberg, "Schmitz is obviously able
to mask his true feelings at times, evidenced by his impassive response when
sentenced...."  With as much admiration as pity, Rosenberg describes Schmitz
as he "stood stonily before Judge Francis X. O'Brien...  and heard his
future."

Since when is it an act of GRACE for any heterosexual to respond without
immediate hate or horror when hugged by a homosexual?  There is nothing
virtuous about homophobes who shake hands with gay men in public, and later
kill them.  Rosenberg's hyperbole is, itself, evidence of excessive
heterosexism.

The lesbian and gay futures regularly robbed by murderous homophobes are
never mentioned by this TV critic.  Indeed, HOMOPHOBIA is never mentioned by
Rosenberg.  It is, however, practiced.  And perpetuated.

Homophobic behavior is undoubtedly complex.  But it IS homophobic.
 Recognizing that quality is essential to any understanding of the problem...
 and an absolute precursor to any solution.

* * * *  ACTION ALERT!:   Don't let heterosexist critics shirk homophobia's
blame; send critical feedback to Howard Rosenberg, Television Critic, "Los
Angeles Times," Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053, fax 213-237-4712,
e-mail [email-masked]; copy your comments to Shelby Coffey,
Editor-in-Chief, "Los Angeles Times," at the same address.

[For further background on coverage of the Jenny Jones case, see "The Hate
That Dared Not Speak It's Name," MEDIAlert!, Nov. 1-15, 1996]

[4]

M  E  D  I  A  /  B  R I  E  F  S

***  RE: SEARCH . . .   Perceiving "the lack of a comprehensive gay catalog
online," QMondo.com has launched a new web search engine [www.qmondo.com].
 According to QMondo's Ian Hough, the new service hopes "to index and catalog
all gay and GLBT-friendly sites on the Internet and to provide supplementary
gay content directly at QMondo."  Launched in late November, QMondo currently
contains over 1300 links.

***  SITE SEEING . . .   Billed as "the queer guide to St. Louis"
[www.gaystlouis.com/], this  new site on the World Wide Web is also a source
for diverse news and views.  "Gaystlouis.com" has been up and running since
November 1.

***  THE CRITICAL CHILD . . .    The Center for Media Literacy has published
its "1997 Media Literacy Resource Catalog."  Intended for parents, educators
and advocates, the catalog lists various resources for promoting children's
critical awareness of the mass media.  Contact:  Center for Media Literacy,
4727 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 403, Los Angeles, CA 90010, tel. 800-226-9494, fax
213-931-4474.

***  HYPER ACTIVE . . .    The Lesbian Avengers Civil Rights Organizing
Project has written an activist handbook "for fighting the Christian Right at
the grassroots level."  According to Michele Kelley (e-mail
[email-masked]), the new book is based on experiences fighting an
anti-queer initiative in Idaho though it is "broadly applicable to all
grassroots organizing."  The handbook is currently available online, at
http://home.dti.net/kelley/.

***  SHELF LIVES . . .    "Who's In A Family?" is the question asked by a
children's picture book, and the answer attempts to "include everyone."
 Distributed as a fundraiser for Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition
International (GLPCI), the book portrays "all different kinds of families:
 multiracial, multigenerational, gay, lesbian, straight, single parents,
step-families, families with only children and no children -- even animal
families."  "Who;s In A Family?" is recommended for young children (ages 3 to
7)... AND their school libraries.  Contact:  GLPCI Publications Office, P.O.
Box 43206, Montclair, NJ 07043, tel./fax 201-783-6204, e-mail
[email-masked], web www.qrd.org/QRD/www/orgs/glpci/HOME.HTM.

***  JOURNALISMS . . .    On the academic front, a recently-launched journal
-- "New Media: Technology, Society, Culture" -- intends to provide an
international forum for "social science, cultural studies and innovation and
policy studies perspectives on the emergence, adoption and implications of
new information and communication technologies."  For details, contact the
editor:  Paschal Preston, Director, COMTEC, Dublin City University,
Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland, tel. 00-353-1704-5478, e-mail [email-masked].

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT MEDIALERTS

Distributed as a community press service since 1992, "MEDIAlert!" [TM]
(formerly the "GLAAD Media Watch") is a biweekly, advocacy-oriented column of
media criticism, primarily focused on lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender
issues.  Recipients may print, publish or post this material, in whole or
part, under this or any title, without prior permission.  When appropriate,
attribution can be made to "Al Kielwasser" and/or "MEDIAlert!"  File copies
of publications using all or part of any "MEDIAlert!" are always appreciated
(and can be sent to the address below).

Next "MEDIAlert!"   =   December 16-31, 1996.

Contact:  A. P. Kielwasser, MEDIAction, 163 Park Street, San Francisco, CA
94110-5835, voice-mail 415-826-5203,  fax 415-826-5203 (ext. 8), e-mail
[email-masked].

--------------------------------------------------------------

AUTHOR NOTES

Al Kielwasser is the editor of "Gay People, Sex and the Media" (New York:
 Haworth Press) and his criticism and research have appeared widely, in both
mainstream and academic publications (including the "Journal of American
Culture," "Journal of Homosexuality," "Journal of Popular Culture," and
"Critical Studies in Mass Communication"); in 1996 he completed a second term
as Chair of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation/San Francisco Bay
Area, a pioneering media advocacy organization.

___________________________________________

Shape the forces that shape our society . . .
challenge homophobia in and through the media.

____________________________________________