From: MediAction@aol.com Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:32:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: MEDIAlert! ["A"] - 12/4/97 (Ally McBeal; AIDS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDEX: "MEDIAlert!" - 12.04.97 [Part "A" ONLY] -ITEM 1: "Mixed-Up Messages" [Ally McBeal; Fox; Wilson Cruz; TV Guide; Gender Identity Center]. -ITEM 2: "Cheap Talk" [Jerry Springer Show; 20/20; Universal Television; ABC News]. -ITEM 3: "Health Careless" [CDC; Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; AIDS Media Circus]. Part "B" ["Media/Briefs" and "Web Watch"] posted SEPARATELY. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- M E D I A l e r t ! ["A"] ______________________________ December 4, 1997 Al Kielwasser [1] M I X E D - U P M E S S A G E S Fade in. A young, gay transvestite is bashed. His skull cracked open, he bleeds to death on the street where he worked as a prostitute. An heroically tolerant (and heterosexual) friend applies fresh lipstick to the boy's corpse -- because "Stephanie" would have wanted it that way. Fade out. Not a scene from reality -- but an episode of Fox television's "Ally McBeal" -- this story line mirrors a new complexity in prime-time's treatment of lesbian and gay images. Like most such efforts of late, the intent is positive though the result is mixed. For "Ally McBeal's" December 1 episode, guest star (and real life gay actor) Wilson Cruz played the role of "Stephanie Grant" -- a cross-dressing teen who, despite an innate (and cliche) talent for fashion design, is working as a hooker. When the young prostitute is picked up by police for a third time, he faces an almost certain jail term -- until attorney "Ally McBeal" comes to the rescue. McBeal tracks Stephanie down, finding him working the streets. She blurts with concern: "You'll die this way." "I still need to eat," he reminds her. Subsequently, McBeal tries to convince Stephanie that his only hope of avoiding jail is (essentially) to plead insanity. According to McBeal, a case can be made that Stephanie suffers from "transvestite fetishism" and "a compulsion to attract men." "You have to understand that this is a legal strategy," she assures him. "I am not her suggesting you are insane." Nevertheless, Stephanie is understandably uneasy with the recommended plea. Passionately, he replies: "I don't want to say I'm sick.... The reason I left home is because everyone said I'm sick." McBeal continues to advise her client that the REAL goal is not to have Stephanie declared "sick," but merely to "avoid jail." However, she (along with other authority figures in this episode) does not REALLY question the veracity of her basic claim -- that sexual orientation, transvestism and gender identity represent, in themselves, legitimate grounds for psychological dysfunction. If not insane, then Stephanie is portrayed -- at best -- as mentally dazed. At McBeal's behest, a psychologist is brought in to verify that Stephanie suffers from "gender dysphoria." Because of Stephanie's "disorder," the doctor explains: "Psychologically and emotionally he's more like a woman, or thinks he's one.... He's hugely confused.... He NEEDS counseling!" Speaking with another colleague, McBeal repeats -- and reinforces -- this dubious diagnosis. She confides: "This is a kid who doesn't know what or who he is... and he's out on the street at night because he doesn't know how to make his rent." "He's the most fragile person living in the harshest of environments," McBeal then tells a sympathetic judge. "He's obviously not well." Stephanie knows better than the so-called "experts," however, and he ultimately refuses to plead insanity. "I'm not sick," he again reminds McBeal (and the audience). Pulling off his wig, Stephanie shouts: "This doesn't make me a freak!" The judge eventually agrees NOT to decide the case, one way or another, but to hold off on any verdict for a year. As a condition of this bargain, McBeal hires Stephanie to work as a clerk in her law office (in drag, as he prefers). Though more accepted than not, Stephanie still suffers a few stupid remarks from bigoted coworkers -- remarks which (depending upon one's point of view) he either refuses to dignify or defend against. As the plot concludes, however, it is Stephanie's "old job" that apparently gets the better of him. Back on the streets, he is struck in the head -- and killed. As a police officer at the scene explains to McBeal: "The 'John' went crazy when he found out the 'Jane' was a guy." Cradling Stephanie's head, McBeal lovingly applies a last coat of lipstick. Echoing her earlier concerns, she asks aloud: "Why did he have to go back out there? I mean, he HAD A JOB." However positive the SURFACE message of this scene might have been, the UNDERLYING suggestion is less affirming. McBeal suggests that this young, gay transvestite was killed because of his UNSAFE PROFESSION -- not because he lived in an UNSAFE WORLD, riddled with phobia. Subtly, the audience is asked to believe that Stephanie's death was a virtual SUICIDE. In fact, he was guilty of nothing. He was MURDERED -- not only by a bigot, but by BIGOTRY itself. Like the characters who filled out the rest of this plot, "Ally McBeal" never seriously implicates the real threat. Homophobia remains unmentioned and unexamined. Transgender health and pride are not asserted. Throughout the episode, a subplot about discrimination against "short people" only added to this obscurity. Though attempting to convey the idea that any form of bigotry is stupid -- whether it is directed at straight men who are short or gay men who wear dresses -- this story line further trivialized the seriousness of the subject (after all, short people are neither refused marriage licenses nor beaten to death for holding hands in public). Thus "TV Guide" (Nov. 29 - Dec. 5) was able to include the show on it's list of "recommended viewing" for the week -- describing this broadcast as a "poignant episode [about] a lonely transvestite." That, after all , is just what the audience got. Effectively heterosexist, the story line amounts to a NON-THREATENING treatment of gay and transgender identity. Blame is reserved for loneliness, gender "confusion," prostitution, sexual "compulsions" -- and everything BUT bigotry. Transphobia is never directly implicated. Homophobia is not the "problem" to resolve. "Ally McBeal's" (largely straight) audience could remain guilt free -- and ready to shop. No "gender certain" individuals were harmed in the making of this show. **** ACTION ALERT! Send feedback to Brett King, Program Director, Fox Broadcasting Company, P.O. Box 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90213, fax 310-369-1433; comments on any Fox show can also be e-mailed to: askfox@foxinc.com. Copy your response to the show's producers (Ren Mar Studios) and Fox's parent company (News America). Contact: "Ally McBeal," Ren Mar Studios, 846 N. Cahuenga Blvd., Bldg. A, 2nd Floor, Hollywood, CA 90038, web-site http://www.foxnetwork.com/allyindx.htm; Rupert Murdoch, Chair, News America Pub. Inc., 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10030, tel. 212-852-7000. [ Re/Sources: Along with providing "support to those people who cross dress, are transsexual, or are experiencing gender identity confusion," the Gender Identity Center is a non-profit organization that serves "an informational and educational resource to the community at large;" contact GIC, 1455 Ammons St., Suite 100 Lakewood, CO 80215-4993, tel. 303-202-6466, e-mail GICofColo@aol.com ]. [2] C H E A P T A L K "They didn't know their girlfriends have girlfriends... their girlfriends are bisexual! Today, on Springer." So begins another episode of "The Jerry Springer Show" (Nov. 19) -- the second most-popular talk show on daytime television. For this broadcast, various women were invited to tell their boyfriends or husbands: "Guess what, I'm bisexual!" As such, the focus of audience sympathy was directed squarely toward the needs and interests of heterosexual men -- who were betrayed by "bisexual cheaters" and their "secret (female) lovers." In this context, much of the show's talk (from guests and host alike) could do little more than pander to negative stereotypes. Bisexuals were portrayed as lecherous, confused and/or deceitful. Springer sympathetically introduced one of his heterosexual guests as a man who feared "this woman is trying to steal his girlfriend!" Whether or not his girlfriend was bisexual seemed a secondary point -- as if, first and foremost, heterosexuality should be "protected" (and thus "saved"). Similarly, following a commercial break, Springer announced: "Welcome back! What would you do if you found out your lover was cheating on you with someone of the same sex?" After another break, he explained: "My guests are here today to tell these women to stay away from their lovers." Tellingly, Springer did NOT refer to the bisexual women on his panel as "guests" of the show (even though they outnumbered the straight men). Likewise, he addressed the viewing audience as of it were solely heterosexual. Again -- the focus turned on straight, male concerns. Repeatedly, the female guests were blamed for "hiding" their bisexuality -- though most of the men were either too blind or bigoted to see the truth. However, Springer never faulted these men for "ignoring" bisexuality (dumbly assuming that everyone who isn't gay must be straight). Properly cued, audience members also tended to cheer on the straight men while hissing at the queer women. For example, one guest ("Tim") accused another ("Lisa") of trying to get his girlfriend drunk in order to have sex. When he angrily referred to this woman as "a dyke bitch!," the audience burst into applause. A similar response met another heterosexual guest, who dismissed the bisexual women as "goofy broads who don't know what the hell they want." As with every show, Springer concluded this broadcast with a "Final Thought." Unfortunately, he took the opportunity to heap further blame upon the "guilty" (i.e., bisexual) women -- for cheating on their "innocent" (i.e., straight and male) partners. Bisexuals are entitled to their "sexual preference... to choose either a man or a woman," Springer conceded. But, he admonished, they must -- "like everyone else is a relationship" -- "choose only one." Once again, Springer invited guests who were likely to anger, hurt or even assault each other -- and then criticized them for doing just that! Instead of "bisexual cheaters," he could just as easily have done a show about happy, non-traditional families -- made up of two or more BISEXUAL LOVERS. Prime-time "news" shows are not immune to the same heterosexist (and sexist) bias. A promotional spot for a recent episode of ABC newsmagazine "20/20" (Dec. 4) declares the evening's topic: "These men thought they had great marriages.... Then their wives told them they were lesbians!" **** ACTION ALERT! Talk back to the talk shows' send critical feedback to: Jerry Springer and Richard Dominick, Executive Producer, "Jerry Springer Show," 454 N. Columbus Drive, Chicago, IL 60611, tel. 800-96-JERRY, web-site http://www.universalstudios.com/ [or, http://www.mca.com/tv/jerryspringer/]. The "Jerry Springer Show" is distributed by Universal Television, a unit of the Seagram Company; contact: Edgar M. Bronfman, Chair, The Seagram Company Ltd., 1430 Peel Street, Montreal PQ CN H3A1S9, Canada, tel. 514-849-5271, fax 514-987-5201; MCA/Universal, 100 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, CA 91608, tel. 818-777-1000, e-mail cyber@mca.com. Comments regarding "20/20" can be sent to: Richard Wald, Senior Vice President of ABC News, ABC Television Network, 77 W. 66th Street, New York, NY 10023-6201, tel. 212-456-7777, fax 212-456-2381, e-mail abcquest@ccabc.com. [ Re/Sources: For related media criticism, see: "Nothing To Talk About?," MEDIAlert! (Dec. 18, 1995), http://www.qrd.org/qrd/media/medialert/1995/12.18.95 ]. [3] H E A L T H C A R E L E S S It is as much ironic as irritating. Whenever any suffering and oppressed minority manages to make some progress, the mainstream media are quick to suggest that things "have gone too far." Modest gains are portrayed as excessive, when they are -- in fact -- remedial. William Janz, feature writer for the "Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel," offers an unfortunate example of this bias. In a recent column on AIDS (Nov. 18), Janz argues that the disease has come to claim more resources and attention than it deserves. "Last year, I was accused of gay bashing when I wrote that AIDS is the media's favorite, most publicized disease, while other diseases kill millions more people," he announces. "Well, I'm going to risk being called an insensitive jerk again, which these critics would say is not that much of a step on my part." "The death rate for AIDS is dropping," he goes on to say. "However, if you are one of millions who have other deadly diseases, you'd receive much more help if you had AIDS." A decade ago, Janz recollects, he wrote about a man "of no name and no fame" who died of AIDS -- "unmourned except by his lover, who held his hand until the dying man let go of life." "If that man had died in some places in our country today," Janz opines, "his friend might have been crowded out of the room by support services." According to Janz, AIDS has "become a media giant and a political force that has gone too far in some areas, as most political forces do when the government opens its bottomless pocketbook, while private citizens also donate large amounts of money." Blaming the press for over-promoting AIDS causes, he writes: "Americans are soft hearted and generous and have responded to the stories journalists wrote, and the pictures television and newspaper photographers showed -- which brought this horrible disease into crisp focus." "In New York City, at the country's largest AIDS social service agency, people who have the AIDS virus can have haircuts, tickets to Broadway plays, free dog walking and weekly candlelight dinners," Janz complains further. Anticipating criticism, he adds: "I can hear advocates for AIDS groups ask how we could begrudge a free haircut to men and women who have death sentences. Since that money isn't going for AIDS research, I'd begrudge them the haircut if that $10 or $20 or $30 each could be given to the Alzheimer's Association, the American Cancer Society or the American Heart Association, for research." "Instead of walking a dog for someone who has AIDS, maybe these walkers could walk with an Alzheimer's patient," Janz says (with condescension, if not outright derision). "The patient might not remember to say thanks, but this disease kills millions of people, then lets these people, for years, walk around, bump into things and fall." As Janz notes, "It was the genius and talent and big name supporters of the gay community that rallied America and got us on the march for a cure." "I'm not telling these dedicated, hard-working people, who have given so much time and effort, to stop supporting, marching and fighting for a cure, which must be found," he insists. "All I'm saying is that there are many organizations, fighting many diseases, affecting many more people than AIDS does, that need more help." "If I had a magic wand that would cure only one disease, it would be a disease that each year kills millions in our country," Janz concludes. "AIDS is not, and never has been, that disease." Like the rest of his column, this conclusion is both simple-minded and sinister. By advancing the notion that public health policy should be limited to the ONE disease that kills MOST, Janz ultimately argues against his own point (that no illness should be ignored at the expense of another). This idea is not only illogical, but inhumane. To suggest that AIDS patients are less-deserving of healthcare is equivalent to suggesting that they deserve to die. In his dubious claim that too much money and attention are spent on AIDS, Janz blames an unfair allocation of resources WITHIN the health care system -- victims of Alzheimer's get too little, because AIDS patients get too much. He never considers whether more tax dollars could (or should) be spent on ALL diseases -- if patients get too little because the Pentagon gets too much. Janz is too preoccupied with numbers, yet even still he OMITS any specific references to AIDS/HIV statistics. In the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control, AIDS is the second-leading cause of death for men and women between the ages of 25-44 -- and the number-one killer of African American women within that age range. To date, 30 million people worldwide are estimated to be HIV-positive. Over the next decade, more than 40 million children in 23 developing nations will have lost one or both of their parents to AIDS. By contrasting AIDS with "less prominent" illnesses, Janz and other critics simply disregard history. If AIDS now appears to be "the media's favorite" and "most publicized disease," it is only because the mainstream press first IGNORED the story for several years (until "innocent" heterosexuals started to die). This hallucination -- that AIDS has become a "media giant" -- is typically unsubstantiated. Like other critics, Janz offers no evidence for his claim. He does not, for example, compare the number (let alone the quality) of newspaper articles devoted to various diseases over the past decade. Instead, he offers only his IMPRESSION that more (and better) coverage has been given to AIDS. Such impressions are the stuff of heterosexist myopia. Accustomed to seeing themselves their interests over-represented in the media, critics like Janz begrudge anything that strays from this egocentric mainstream. Though it might be inappropriate to accuse Janz of "gay bashing," his bigotry is thinly veiled. Such shallow journalism demonstrates a willful and careless disregard -- not only for people with AIDS, but for the entire lesbian and gay community that "rallies" behind them. **** ACTION ALERT! Remind this journalist that he needn't worry about being CALLED an "insensitive jerk;" he should worry about BEING one. Contact: William Janz, Staff Writer, "Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel," Box 371, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0371, fax 414-224-5175, e-mail onwis@execpc.com. [ Re/Sources: To sample a bit of "historical" context first-hand, see veteran reporter John Gallagher's brief cover-story for the "Advocate" (Sept. 10, 1991) -- in which he examines "The AIDS Media Circus: The New Hype and Hysteria Behind the Headlines." For related media criticism, see: "Risky Reporting," MEDIAlert! (Aug. 29, 1997), http://www.gaytrek.com/alert.html ]. [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 always 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 popular and academic publications; he was twice elected Chair of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation/San Francisco Bay Area. ________________________________________ "Shape the forces that shape our society . . . Challenge homophobia in and through the media." ________________________________________