From: MediAction@aol.com Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: MEDIAlert! ["A"] - 10/6 (Promise Keepers; Bent) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INDEX: "MEDIAlert!" - 10.06.97 [Part "A" ONLY] -ITEM 1: "Promise-skewity" [Promise Keepers; Associated Press; Reuters; MSNBC; Newshour]. -ITEM 2: "Much Ado About Nothing" [Nothing Sacred; AFA; Catholic League; Weight Watchers; Isuzu; Sears; Red Lobster; Kmart; ABC]. -ITEM 3: "Crooked Ratings" [Bent; Motion Picture Association of America]. Part "B" ["Media/Briefs" and "Web Watch"] posted SEPARATELY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M E D I A l e r t ! ___________________________ October 6, 1997 Al Kielwasser [1] P R O M I S E - S K E W I T Y The recent "Promise Keepers" rally in Washington was, if nothing else, a victory of public relations over professional journalism. Media coverage was decidedly skewed toward the shallow end of the press pool. At best, both print and broadcast journalists glossed over the Keepers' homophobic agenda. At worst, they supported it. Promise Keepers was founded nearly a decade ago by former University of Colorado football coach Bill McCartney. A notorious homophobe, McCartney championed his state's "Amendment Two" -- a measure which, if successful, would have denied basic civil rights to lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens. In published reports, McCartney has further declared that "homosexuality is an abomination against Almighty God." He has regularly made even dimmer statements, such as his contention that lesbians and gays are "a group of people who don't reproduce, yet want to be compared to people who do reproduce." Similarly, in an early interview with the "Denver Post, " Promise Keepers co-founder Dave Wardell announced that he was drawing "a line in the sand" -- to stop homosexuals, "Act Up people" and "the foreign religions coming in here." Under the guise of the Promise Keepers "spiritual" gatherings, featured speakers echo this phobic party line. At a Promise Keepers rally in Dallas, for example, evangelist Tony Evans defined homosexuality as "immorality in the name of hell." The official Promise Keepers position on homosexuality is that it "violates God's creative design for a husband and a wife and that it is a sin." Not surprisingly, a major focus of the Washington rally was "sexual purity" (i.e., monogamous heterosexual marriage) -- and, by extension, sexual "impurity" (i.e., everything else). In his keynote, McCartney again affirmed the Promise Keepers' conviction that "the sin of homosexuality cannot be excused." In covering the rally, major wire services at least acknowledged the group's opposition to homosexuality -- though almost in passing. In a 22-paragraph story by the Associated Press (Oct. 2), for example, paragraph 16 finally reports that "religious leaders and academics held a news conference to vice concerns about the Promise Keepers' message, a message some say denigrates women and condemns homosexuals." Homosexuals say nothing in this article, however, as none are quoted -- and the issue is examined no further. What "some say" is not really the point, in any case. What McCartney and his fellow homophobes HAVE SAID is evidence enough of denigration -- but that evidence is missing from AP's story. Similarly, in a 27-paragraph article from Reuters (Oct. 4), the 24th paragraph first mentions that "the movement has aroused fear and suspicion among some women, gays and political moderates who say that McCartney and his followers have a hidden political agenda that is profoundly right-wing." Once again, no gays -- suspicious, fearful or otherwise -- are quoted in the article. The matter is dropped almost as soon as it is raised. Significantly, no one needs to "suspect" the existence of McCartney's homophobic agenda, for it is perfectly clear. That background material was left out of this and most other articles, however, leaving an impression that lesbian and gay critics of the Promise Keepers are somehow overreacting -- responding not to the reality, but to a mere "rumor" of threat. In this absence of substantive reporting, public figures like President Clinton were free to "applaud the Promise Keepers movement for its commitment to family" (Associated Press, Oct. 4). No one expected Clinton to seriously explain his support. He was not asked, for example, just how it is that homophobia "strengthens our families." Perhaps this deference to homophobia and heterosexism reached its most pathetic heights during an MSNBC newscast, featuring lesbian journalist Donna Minkowitz. Remarkably, she too downplayed the reality of homophobia -- and actually described the Promise Keepers as "a force for good." Minkowitz based her conclusions on undercover work she did for an article on the group, written several years ago for "Ms." magazine. Even public television's venerated "Newshour" failed to provide an alternative to the rose-colored coverage. One day after the rally (Oct. 6), a "Newshour" segment purporting to "focus" on the Promise Keepers offered little depth and even less diversity. The report opened with a video review of the Promise Keepers rally, which did (briefly) mention the group's "opposition to ... homosexuality." This was followed by a live discussion amongst a panel of five "regional commentators," representing major newspapers across the country. Not ONE commentator condemned the Promise Keepers' homophobia. In fact, they all seemed to overlook it -- as EACH found reasons to praise the group. Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman" argued that the Promise Keepers "are definitely a force for the good." Robert Kittle of the "San Diego Tribune" agreed, and suggested that the group is "part of the spiritual renewal that's going on in this country.... a very encouraging trend." "It doesn't offend me a lot," Kittle said. "This group is reaching out to all male Americans." Never mind GAY Americans, Kittle might have added, unless of course they can be "saved" or "converted." The Promise Keepers ARE indeed "reaching out" to homosexuals -- in the hope of ELIMINATING them. Another commentator -- Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution" -- suggested that critics of the group are just overly "nervous" or paranoid. "If they (the Promise Keepers) say they don't have a political agenda, we have to take them at their word," she also insisted. Tucker's attitude seems something of a throwback -- reminiscent of a time when journalists took Joseph McCarthy "at his word." Whatever happened to the notion of INVESTIGATIVE reporting? Like Tucker, however, the "Boston Globe's" Mike Barnicle also lashed out at the "hysterical reaction" of "special interest groups." Those who find fault with the Promise Keepers are basically nuts, according to Barnicle -- "they are more afraid of people who pray in public, than people who prey upon the public." "Worse things can happen than a group of guys gathering on the mall and promising to be better husbands, fathers and human beings," he sarcastically noted. Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News" echoed the sentiment. "You certainly can't fault them for trying to be good fathers," he said. "That's a good thing." What Barnicle and Cullum failed to ask is how many thousands of those fathers, wittingly or not, brought a tormented gay son to this anti-gay rally? Homophobes promise to be BAD parents -- especially of lesbian, gay and bisexual children. Promising to combat the "sin" of homosexuality (as the Keepers do) is effectively to embrace the real evil of homophobia. This dedication to bigotry is incompatible with becoming a "better human being." The media pundits seem unable or unwilling to grasp this point, however simple. You certainly can fault them for not trying. * * * * ACTION ALERT! To encourage critical coverage of the "Religious Right," send feedback to: Peggy Robinson, Senior Producer and Jim Lehrer, Anchor, "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 3620 S. 27th St., Arlington, VA 22206, e-mail newshour@pbs.org (copy correspondence to PBS, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314-1698, e-mail viewer@pbs.org, web-site http://www.pbs.org); Associated Press, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, Fifth Floor, New York, NY 10020-1666, tel. 212-621-1600, fax 212-621-7520, e-mail rgersh@ap.org; Reuters, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038, fax 212-859-1717, e-mail webmaster@reuters.com, web-site www.reuters.com; Mark Harrington, Vice President, MSNBC, 2200 Fletcher Ave., Fort Lee, NJ 07024, fax-201-583-5512, e-mail opinion@msnbc.com. Comments for the "Newshour" commentators should be sent in care of their appropriate newspapers: "Atlanta Journal-Constitution," 72 Marietta St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30303, tel. 404-526-5151, e-mail constitution@ajc.com; "San Diego Union-Tribune," P.O. Box 191, San Diego, CA 92112-4106, tel. 619-299-3131 (or 800-244-6397), e-mail utletters@aol.com; "The Boston Globe," Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107, fax 617-929-3490, e-mail letter@globe.com; "The Dallas Morning News," P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, TX 75265, tel. 214-977-8222, web-site http://www.dallasnews.com; "The Oklahoman," P. O. Box 25125, Oklahoma City, OK, 73125, fax 405-475-3971. [ Re/Sources: A recent action alert distributed by Women Leaders Online ("PK Side Show Ends-Time for Real Reporting to Begin," Oct. 6) offers a succinct and practical critique of the media's coverage of the Promise Keepers; contact WLO, P.O. Box 11019, Washington, DC 20008, tel. 202-861-4730, fax 202-364-3018, e-mail wlo@wlo.org, web-site http://wlo.org. The Institute for First Amendment Studies has compiled a profile of the Promise Keepers, which highlights the group's homophobic foundations (IFAS, P.O. Box 589, Great Barrington, MA 01230, e-mail ifas@berkshire.net, web-site http://www.ifas.org); additional background can be found in Chris Roth's "Dossier on the Promise Keepers Movement," distributed through the First Amendment Update list service (e-mail croth@omnifest.uwm.edu). To keep a critical eye on the Promise Keepers, the Center for Democracy Studies publishes a "PK Watch" newsletter (http://cdsresearch.org/promise_keepers_watch.htm); another online resource is the Promise Keepers fact sheet at the Queer Resource Directory's "Radical Religious Right" page (http://www.qrd.org/www/RRR/pk.html). ]. [2] M U C H A D O A B O U T ' N O T H I N G ' "Nothing Sacred" premiered September 25 on ABC, and has been a source of continuing controversy ever since. The new series, which centers around the life and times of "Father Ray" -- an inner-city Catholic priest -- is under fire from various conservative religious groups. Consequently, several major advertisers have begun pulling their support from the show. The ultra-homophobic American Family Association (AFA) contends that "Nothing Sacred's" portrayal of Father Ray is both "blasphemous" and "profane" -- because the character "opposes everything biblical Christianity teaches on subjects like abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality." "If ABC wants to continue driving Christians away from them as a corporation, they should continue producing trash like," said AFA vice-president Tim Wildmon. According to Wildmon, AFA members nationwide are expressing their opposition to the series by lobbying advertisers, the network, and their local stations. Much to the AFA's dismay, David Manson -- executive producer of "Nothing Scared" -- utterly rebuffs the critics. "We're unrepentant about the choices we've made for the show," Manson insists. Unfortunately, however, major advertisers have been less stalwart. Speaking on condition of anonymity, an ABC representative told the Associated Press that Weight Watchers and American Isuzu Motors "have pulled their ads from the show." These sponsors dropped out just prior to the broadcast of an episode "involving a priest with AIDS." Sears and Red Lobster have also bailed. William Donahue, director of the conservative Catholic League, hopes that other sponsors will follow suit. Most recently, according to Donahue, Kmart has agreed not to advertise on "Nothing Scared" -- though an ABC spokesperson maintains that the retail chain did not have any ads scheduled in the first place. Lisa Webb, a spokesperson for the Weight Watchers company, explained her company's position this way: "We got a tremendous amount of feedback from the public about the show and we just decided it wasn't necessary for us to be on that program." An Isuzu spokesperson also confirmed -- anonymously -- that decisions were made on the basis of "complaints received." Even if advertisers claim their desire is only "to avoid controversy," they are hardly taking a neutral stand. Inasmuch as such controversy is, itself, a creation of Right Wing censors, these companies are doing the biding of bigots. * * * * ACTION ALERT! Send critical feedback to these amoral advertisers; remind each that in failing to support fairness and diversity, they become sponsors of bigotry and censorship: -- Anthony J. F. O'Reilly, Chair, WEIGHT WATCHERS (H. J. Heinz Co.), P.O. Box 57, Pittsburgh, PA 15230, tel. 412-456-5700, fax 412-456-6128. -- Jay W. Chai, Chair, AMERICAN ISUZU (Itochu International Inc.), 335 Madison, New York, NY 10017, tel. 800-255-6727 (or 212-818-8000), fax 212-818-8361 (or 212-818-8152), web-site http://www.itochu.co.jp. -- Arthur C. Martinez, Chair, SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 3333 Beverly Rd., Hoffman Estates, IL 60179, tel. 847-286-5703 (or 847-286-5188), fax 847-286-2444, web-site http://www.sears.com. -- Joe R. Lee, Chair, RED LOBSTER (Darden Restaurants, Inc.), 5900 Lake Ellenor Dr., Orlando, FL 32809, tel. 407-245-4000, fax 407-245-4459, web-site http://www.redlobster.com. -- Floyd Hall, Chair, KMART CORP., 3100 West Big Beaver Rd., Troy, MI 48084, tel. 800-635-6278, fax 810-643-5249, e-mail kmartccn@kmart.com. Copy your correspondence to Robert Iger, Chief Executive Officer, ABC-TV, 77 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023, tel. 212-456-1000, fax 212-456-4866, web-site http://www.abc.com. [ Re/Sources: Contact the opposition at the American Family Association, P.O. Drawer, 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803, tel. 601-844-5036, fax 601-844-9176, web-site http://www.afa.net; Catholic League, 1011 First Avenue, New York, NY 10022, tel. 212-371-3191, fax 212-371-3394, e-mail cl@catholicleague.org, web-site http://www.catholicleague.org. ]. [3] C R O O K E D R A T I N G S Charged with assigning movie ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America has tainted this process with homophobia (again). Scheduled for release on November 26, "Bent" -- a new film about homosexual persecution in Nazi Germany -- has received the MPAA's most restrictive rating: "NC-17." The MPAA claims this rating was assigned because "Bent" contains a "strong scene of graphic sexuality." Specifically, the scene in question depicts a nightclub orgy; the camera pans a crowded room in which various couples -- some gay and lesbian -- are engaged in disparate acts of love. Yet, as "Variety" (Oct. 2) reports: "The sex scenes in 'Bent' are actually less graphic than many that appear between heterosexuals in mainstream movies that have received R ratings, according to sources who have seen the film." According to guidelines issued by the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, an R rating is given to indicate that a movie is: "Restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian." On rating of NC-17, on the other hand, indicates: "No one 17 and under admitted." Unfortunately, "Bent" is a typical case. The MPAA has repeatedly assigned more restrictive ratings to movies with lesbian or gay content -- suggesting that homosexuality itself is essentially offensive, dangerous, and "for adults only." In 1995, for example, "When Night is Falling" -- a film containing two scenes of lesbian romance -- was also tagged for an NC-17 rating. The distributor, October Films, objected: "It is our strong belief that if these two scenes had involved heterosexual love-making, we would have received the less restrictive R rating. It is very unfortunate, and quite ominous, that the MPAA has opted to take this course with its rating decision." The MPAA's homophobic bias can be costly -- in more ways than one. According to a Hollywood Reporter Poll of adults (18+), "an NC-17 rating can keep nearly a quarter of the available audience away from a movie." The survey further suggests that NC-17 ratings can "steer away a substantial segment of the audience for a film considered to be a high-quality production. Twenty-four percent of those polled said they would refuse to attend an NC-17 rated film even if it has received mass critical acclaim." Based on these findings, Marcella Berland, senior vice-president of KRC Research, has concluded that the NC-17 rating is a definite "handicap" -- significantly diminishing a film's chances for mainstream exposure. Often, when threatened with an NC-17, movie makers will re-edit the film to earn a more marketable R rating. In the current case, however, "Bent's" distributor is leaving things just as they are. "We wouldn't do anything to compromise the integrity of the piece," said Gerry Rich, president of MGM worldwide marketing. "And we certainly wouldn't ask the filmmaker to change a frame of his film to change the ratings." Unfair NC-17 ratings discourage audiences in general, and young filmgoers in particular, from seeing lesbian and gay films, thus perpetuating the ignorant cycle of homophobia. In a culture that routinely "restricts," "warns" and otherwise advises against the viewing of lesbian or gay LOVE, it becomes easy -- even inevitable -- to ignore, fear and HATE lesbians and gays. * * * * ACTION ALERT! Protest the MPAA's crooked ratings scheme; send complaints to Motion Picture Association of America, Classification and Rating Administration, 14144 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, tel. 202-293-1966, fax 202-293-7674, e-mail larmstro@mpaa.org (or pegge@mpaa.org), web-site http://www.mpaa.org. [end] -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT MEDIALERTS Distributed continuously since 1992 as a community press service, "MEDIAlert!" [TM] is a biweekly action and advocacy-oriented column of media criticism, 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 appreciated. Contact: MEDIAlert!, 163 Park Street, San Francisco, CA 94110-5835, voice-mail/fax 415-826-5203, e-mail MediAction@aol.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------- AUTHOR NOTES The editor of "Gay People, Sex and the Media" (New York: Haworth Press), Al Kielwasser's media criticism and research have appeared widely in both mainstream and academic publications; he was twice elected Chair of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation/San Francisco Bay Area.