Gelfand, Louis I. Gay column leads to 475 cancellations. (Reports from 5 Newspapers on Coverage of Gays) Nieman Reports v47, n3 (Fall, 1993):82 (2 pages). FROM President and Fellows of Harvard University 1993 Gays and those who dislike their life styles are making community journalism stand up to be counted. Gays want time and space to stake their legitimacy. Detractors fear their surroundings will be polluted. At the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, reader opinion has moved from ho-hum to a subscription revolt by those who believe a gay column contains mind- altering venom. In 1978 The Minneapolis Star published a week-long series "intended to examine common beliefs about gays and to present an accurate depiction of homosexuality." It "was ground breaking" journalism for Minnesota "at the beginning of gay liberation," remembers Deborah Howell, then executive editor, now chief of the Newhouse Washington bureau. Reader reaction was "mixed," she said, but there was "nothing out of the ordinary" in cancelations. Nor does the series' author, John Carman, now TV columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle, recall any unusual reader response. Fifteen years later the merged Star Tribune introduced a Wednesday column about gay life by Deb Price, a lesbian. The column had been initiated by the Detroit News and made available to the other 82 Gannett papers and to the 30 members of the Gannett News Service. Estimates vary on how many of the those 112 papers use the column, but a guess is about a quarter. It also is sold by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, which says it has 30 to 40 subscribers. In his note to readers introducing the column, Star Tribune assistant managing editor Arnie Robbins acknowledged: "We recognize that this new weekly column will generate controversy." Appealing to reason, he added: "We believe it offers a personal perspective on gay and lesbian issues that readers will find insightful." After 10 weeks 475 subscribers (out of an audited 410,920) canceled. That's three times the number who said "goodbye" when stock quotation listings were reduced in September 1991 from 5,500 to 1,800, and, in the memory of old-timers, a new high, or low, depending on your point of view. Compare that with the "one or two" cancelations an official of a large Gannett paper in the so-called "Bible belt" said were received after the paper began using the Price column on an occasional basis. The Star Tribune constituents who canceled were not kind and gentle. Many quoted Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." That was followed by First Corinthians 6:9 that categorizes "homosexual offender" with prostitutes, adulterers, thieves and other undesirables. The newspaper received copies of a handout that asked, quizzically, "Can it be that we have closed our minds to only granting the homosexuals whatever they want at the expense of others' religious freedom?" Absent was an explanation of whose freedom was being expensed. Many asked: Can the paper be delivered every day except Wednesday? I avoided responding that technology soon will make that possible by assigning a special zip code to complainers. The circulation department sent me a report of every cancelation with the reader's reason. One from a Rick Jass was typical: "The reader does not feel that gays should be given the respect due other minorities since they are only 1 percent of the population" In the frenzy of their resentment, readers did not ask: Can the column educate non-gays as well as comfort gays? Is it possible to address both audiences simultaneously? Robert Giles, The Detroit News publisher, who gave Price her entree, believes that the religious bias against the column "convinces me even more deeply that the column's educational value is more and more needed." And he says he has had support from other newspaper editors who believe "the column has great value because it presents a perspective on gay and homosexual issues that is thoughtful and educational rather than in your face." Giles says he's also heard from some editors "that they are not quite sure they have the courage to present this to their readers." The Star Tribune's Editor, Tim McGuire, visualizes the Price readership as mostly gay. He says, "The column has a cathartic potential for gays, telling them to have the courage to live their life style. The column is not part of a campaign to push or profess a life style," but appears "because gays are a significant part of our community who need to be covered." From Carman's 1978 series until 1986 the subject of equality for gays in the daily Minneapolis press was dormant. Then the AIDS story quickened coverage. The number of staff-written articles on homosexual topics increased from 21 in 1986 to 44 in the first six months of 1993. An emphasis on AIDS changed in 1987 to articles about domestic-partners legislation, support groups and legal rights. Non-gays complained in 1987 when the newspaper reported that a former president of Dayton's, the region's mercantile leader, had died of AIDS and quoted the editor of a Twin Cities gay newspaper saying, "There were two secrets involved - gayness and AIDS." Friends of the executive's family questioned the newspaper's integrity and said the family's privacy had been wrecked. The newspaper's editorial described the gay editor's statement as "heartless prying into a heartbreaking matter," but did not criticize newsroom colleagues for publishing the quotation. Similarly, when the director of the Minneapolis Public Works Department, a closet gay, died in 1990, the newspaper in a compilation of local items included the medical examiner's report that the death was AIDS-related. After the City of Minneapolis passed a domestic-partners ordinance in March, 1991, the newspaper announced it would accept celebrations want ads from gays to appear with anniversaries, engagements, and weddings in the classified advertising section. Scores of callers told me they'd never announce their anniversary in The Star Tribune because "I don't want to be with queers." By July, 1993 fewer than 10 gay celebrations had appeared among the several thousand announcements. In December of 1992 a 12-page special Sunday section titled, "Growing Up Gay/A Crisis in Hiding," got a tepid response. It was the idea of staff photographer Rita Reed, whose pictures accompanied the articles. I anticipated reader fortissimo because Reed, at her request, was identified in a sidebar as a lesbian. But cancelations were few and a score or more of callers were supportive. Typical was the man who said, If this had been published 20 years ago when I was growing up, my life would have been happier." Similarly, when the comic strip, "For Better or For Worse," in April of this year told the story of a 17-year-old's coming out, the reaction was mild. About 35 subscribers quit, a whimper contrasted with the 842 who abandoned The Rocky Mountain News in Denver for the same reason. Management decisions are reflected in newsroom relations between it and staff members who are open about being gay. Photographer Reed said she felt comfortable about suggesting the "Growing Up Gay" special section. She said she brought "awareness, understanding, knowledge and a sensitivity to the subject that I think helped us get and tell the story. I questioned myself ruthlessly and felt I had done my best." She said she wanted to be identified as a lesbian for two reasons: "I felt that the ultimate honesty was to state my possible bias so the readers had the information to judge for themselves. Second, [our sources] were ever fearful that the main-stream media was seeking to exploit and sensationalize gays. They challenged me as to whether or not I would be willing to be as out in this article as I was seeking the teenagers to be. My willingness was part of easing their fears." Ron Meador, in charge of special projects, and investigative reporter Lou Kilzer initiated talks with gay employees to read a controversial article on AIDS. "They helped us avoid some phrasing that seemed callous," Meador said. "And they helped us with lots of nuances, writing bobbles - although they weren't trained editors, they were very careful readers." How does the ombudsman respond to the callers who cite the Bible as proof that publishing the Price column is a repudiation of God? You do it differently on the phone than in print. First, analyze the complainant. Maniacal in tone - listen briefly and note you have a call waiting. A view anchored in granite - listen and be gentle. Firm and articulate - gingerly explain the newspaper's wish to inform without advocating. Firm, articulate and open-minded - sympathetically outline the newspaper's desire to serve an eclectic audience. In print confront the issue. After Price's first two columns, I wrote: "The primary question is journalistic, not religious. Does it offer sensible advice for gays and, at the same time, help build informed perceptions of gays in others?" "The first column ladled advice on how to label ex-partners. Mundane, but no better or worse than the Miss Manners column. The second one was Price's observations about the gay rights rally in Washington. It had no advice; it belonged on the Commentary page. "To callers who said the Price column taints the whole newspaper, that seems no more logical than declaring that George Will's conservative outlook, printed on the editorial page, taints entire newspapers. "I respect those who object to homosexuality on religious grounds. But a newspaper should not attempt to deny reality. There are millions of American gays. Promoting understanding among members of the community fulfills an important part of the newspaper's mission." No ombudsman, or executive editor, can convince the homophobic there are tiers of authority other than the Bible. There is only one interpretation, and they care not that the winds of time erode glaciers and change minds, nor that medical and scientific knowledge constantly reshapes reality. Ten weeks into the column's life in The Star Tribune, it seems to be honed for the gay audience. That's also how Timothy Rose of the Minnesota Gay and Lesbian Community Action Council, views it. Price projects just enough soap-box advocacy with subtle exhortation to alienate non-gays. She doesn't accept my analysis. "Never in all the time I have talked with anyone has it been characterized that way. What I'm trying to do is talk about the diversity of gay life." Price's unwillingness to consider the possibility that the exhortation in her column dilutes its educational impact is all too characteristic of those who believe they are on a crusade. What it also says is that appealing to two disparate audiences at the same time may be as difficult as capturing a ring of smoke. But don't ship to Bosnia those editors using the Price column. They are leading journalists in the right direction. 38. St. Louis reacts vociferously. FROM President and Fellows of Harvard University 1993 On Mother's Day this year, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch stirred the fires under a leading, long-simmering issue of the 1990's: homosexual rights. On that day, the paper printed a page one "trend" story, with a color photograph, about two men, a homosexual couple, who had been inspired to come out of the closet by the recent gay rights march in Washington. The story described them as a home-loving, monogamous, stable twosome who had spent eight years in the closet before going public to their bosses, their friends and the world. Reader reaction was vociferous. Primarily, it was women and mothers who objected. They had expected to read a traditional tribute to motherhood on page one on "their day." Why did editors deliberately choose that story for such prominent display, they asked, both in anger and sorrow. One put her finger on a sore spot: "Those two aren't going to produce any mothers." My siding with them in my column the following week - on the basis of journalistic sensitivity - brought a contrary outpouring of support for gays and their rights. Several were members of PFLAG - Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "As the mother of a gay son, I know what turmoil and torment gay people go through when they are trying to come to terms with their sexuality," one mother said. Had that story run any other day, much of the controversy would likely have been averted. The episode was further evidence that in these "Gay Nineties" we are seeing the heat that once was generated by the abortion issue shift to the issue of acceptance of homosexuality. The battle lines seem mainly to pit Biblical literalists against homosexual activists. Emotional intransigence on both sides results in an outpouring of phone calls and letters to newspapers whenever the issue hits subscribers' doorsteps. And St. Louis has felt its share of the crossfire. It was the comic strip "For Better Or For Worse" that brought the greatest number of complaints, with its weeks-long series last spring about a teen-age boy's anguish in coming out. That brought scores of calls from outraged readers who didn't want to see this subject cropping up, of all places, in the comics "where the kids will see it." Threats and cancelations of subscriptions poured in. The message, in a nutshell: "That doesn't belong in the funnies. I'm canceling the paper until that strip has been taken out." The objections centered on Biblical proscriptions - the rejection of sodomy (as in Sodom) - and on the threat of AIDS, the forced acceptance of homosexual behavior, and the "capture" of America's youth by predatory gays. Because they believe homosexuality to be a choice, these readers want to bar the doors to gay teachers, coaches, counselors, the clergy and others who they're sure would convert young men and women to their "lifestyle." It's a subject not allowed for discussion in their homes, many readers said, taking some pride in conceding that they had never known a homosexual. My column noting the angry objections to the comic strip stirred an equal avalanche of calls supporting it, along with the paper's decision to continue it. The final tally came close to a stand-off. A more recent point of contention for St. Louis readers came just after Father's Day, when The Post-dispatch gave unequal treatment to demonstrations by gays and Christians. "Lesbian And Gay Pridefest," a gay-rights march, rally and picnic in St. Louis's West End, with about 2,500 taking part, was covered by a story and two photos. Two weeks earlier, the newspaper ignored a Christian march downtown with about 10,000 people from all denominations, praying and singing. Many Christian readers decried the apparent snub. Other news events of recent months that have kept this issue in the arena of public dispute include the following: The beating of a group of white gays by several black St. Louisans in the city's Forest Park in July 1992; the appointment in June of Laura Moore, a 47-year-old lesbian, by St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. to the city's civil rights commission; and the earlier appointment of another lesbian, Carmen Garcia Ruiz, 37, to St. Louis County's civil rights commission. There was more: the spreading of the AIDS quilt in Washington, discrimination against gays at Cracker Barrel restaurants, President Clinton's support for gays in the military, and the Catholic Church's opposition to legal protections for homosexual rights. Strong objections also have come from readers upset by The Post- Dispatch's having taken on a lesbian as an op-ed columnist to write occasionally in behalf of homosexual rights. The spokeswoman, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart, has challenged, among other things, the religious right's opposition to gay rights. She denounced an organized effort by the Amendment Coalition, a group comprising "religious and social fundamentalists" seeking to put on the ballot in 1994 a state constitutional amendment that would, in effect, keep gays from obtaining redress for discrimination. She wrote: "OK, St. Louis, the time has come for me to come out of the closet... I'm a Christian. And as both a Christian and a lesbian, I find myself in a very curious position." Her dilemma: "I am directed [by my faith] to turn the other cheek when I'm struck and pray for those who persecute me." Taking note of anti-gay sentiment stemming from ignorance, she added: "Many people who oppose justice for sexual minorities believe that they don't know anyone who is lesbian or gay. It is easier, I suppose, to trample beneath our feet that which we cannot see. " Such are the battle lines now being deeply drawn. Further entrenchment seems to lie ahead. It's a dispute that could prove, in the long run, to be more acrid and longer-lasting than the 20-year battle over abortion. MEDIA AND GAYS When President Clinton threw open the White House to ordinary Americans on the day after his inauguration, most of the hundreds of visitors took the opportunity to speak a few words to him. According to The New York Times, he "heard again and again about AIDS and gay rights, more than any other issues." That's just one bit of evidence that the gay story is an important one for the media. And Clinton's open house took place even before the issue of gays in the military led to a strident national debate, or the April 25 march in Washington drew hundreds of thousands of gay-rights protesters. With the new focus on gays, editors and reporters are discovering that in terms of reader reaction, covering this subject is unlike any other type of news reporting. To be sure, readers find some of the same problems with stories involving gay and lesbian issues as they do with any other reporting: unfairness, inaccuracy, incompleteness, insensitivity, and all the rest. But in some ways, this topic is unique. One of the primary problems has to do with reader complaints that gay issues are reported at all. Some people who would not object to full, prominent reporting on the other hot-button topics of our time - abortion, gun control, and racial matters, for instance - draw the line at coverage of gay-rights rallies, AIDS demonstrations, and features involving the lifestyles of homosexual couples. As John Silber, president of Boston University, told a Newsday columnist in late 1992, "Decent parents don't even discuss [with their children] the possibility that there are homosexuals" - and, by extension, decent newspapers don't discuss gay issues with their readers. News stories, even those with balance and apparently without bias, are therefore seen by some as taking a point of view: merely to report about gays is to promote the homosexual cause. Often, complaints from readers have to do with photographs, rather than text reporting. In part, this has to do with the "one-picture" nature of much news photography. Photographers and their editors always look for the single telling image, the one photo that sums up an issue or event. When it comes to gays and lesbians, this often turns out to be a picture of two men or two women hugging, kissing, or holding hands - in other words, photos that say "gay." These are images that more than a few readers say they find offensive. Much of the time, readers voice concern about the effect such coverage will have on children. As John Silber noted, some of these simply believe that discussions of homosexuality have no place either in the family or in the family newspaper. But for others, the real issues are timing and control. I have heard from scores of parents who say they do want to discuss gay issues with their children, but perhaps at age 9, not at age 6, and certainly not at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning when the child holds up the newspaper and asks, "Mommy, why are these two men kissing?" That was the case in late June 1992, when my newspaper, The Hartford Courant, profiled an openly gay state legislator in the Sunday roto magazine Northeast. Hundreds of readers complained. Many found the entire story distasteful, but what generated most of the calls and letters was Northeast's cover. it was a photograph of the legislator, who had just publicly announced his homosexuality, kissing a former lover on the mouth. This picture showed an obviously homosexual act. But readers also complain about newspaper pictures of gays and lesbians when the context is made clear only in the caption. For example, on April 26, 1993, The Courant ran a photo of two men hugging during the gay rights demonstration in Washington. Were it not for the caption, a reader might think these were friends mourning the death of a loved one or brothers embracing after a long separation (that is, non-controversial subjects). But readers complained just the same. As important as these issues are, the coverage of gays and lesbians is influenced most of all by an unanswered question: what kind of story are we dealing with? Although the details of individual news items may vary greatly, almost all reporting involves following a series of patterns or models - that is, predictable ways of approaching a story. For instance, most stories about airplane crashes are, at their core, essentially similar, because they fit the "plane-crash story" model. Ditto with coverage of ball games, elections, urban unrest, Congressional hearings, cases of product tampering, the deaths of prominent people and almost everything else that may cross an editor's desk. Although reporters don't tend to think of their craft this way, the assignment boils down to: find the model and plug in the newest facts. Social-issues stories broadly follow two models. One, involving such concerns as abortion and gun control, may be called the Two-Reasonable- Arguments model. The goal is to be utterly nonjudgmental, and to give roughly equal ink to the pros and the cons, on the theory that it's proper to let each side have its say. The other pattern is used for covering civil rights stories, and may be called the One-Reasonable-Argument model. We do not give equal ink to the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, because it is widely believed that the two groups are not morally equivalent; one represents truth and justice, the other hatred and bigotry. A sticky problem with coverage of the gay story is that journalism hasn't decided which model is appropriate. Are there two reasonable arguments? Can moral, fair, sensible people disagree on whether a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable? Or does this story fit the civil-rights model, with rational, public-spirited people on one side and bigots on the other? That hasn't been determined, and therein lies the difficulty. Gay and lesbian groups have lobbied hard for acceptance of the latter model. The question of gays in the military, for instance, has frequently been compared with the post-World-War II moves to racially integrate the armed services. Other groups - notably, but not exclusively, the religious right - have fought equally hard in the other direction. They often use the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument - that is to say, it is not homosexuality per se that is objectionable, but rather homosexual behavior. And of course, it is the behavior that is most often shown in news photos and written about in news stories. As with most social issues, the question of choosing the proper model won't be answered overnight. Indeed, insofar as that is concerned I feel we are nearer the beginning than the end of the debate.