Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Queerty Only Major LGBT Blog To Get Prop 8 Media Access Story Right

There's been drama on the LBGT blogs after my friend and blogger Rex Wockner sent out a piece decrying that the Equality Summit scheduled for Saturday January 24th in Los Angeles had voted to not have the entire conference open to media.
A Jan. 24 summit in Los Angeles to strategize about "winning back marriage rights" in California will be only partially open to media -- a decision that has led to the resignation of one member of the organizing committee and to complaints from California gay media figures.

The Equality Summit apparently will bring together some 150 activists to organize and strategize in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 ballot measure with which voters amended the state constitution to re-ban same-sex marriage.

But according to summit coordinator Anne Marks of Equality California, "the planning committee decided that at some portions of the summit where sensitive strategy discussions were to take place, it could only be advantageous to our opposition if those discussions and plans were
made public, so limiting press, or making these sessions off-the-record, would make sense."

That decision isn't sitting well with some folks, especially given that the failed No on 8 campaign, in which Equality California was the biggest force, has been widely criticized for its insularity.

Joe.My.God, Pam's House Blend, TowleRoad all ran with the story which was clearly fueled by Robin Tyler who was unhappy when the vote on whether to not have a strategic planning summit open to the media went against her.

Most bloggers were critical of the organizers, but Queerty dug deeper and got to the facts of the situation. In a "Queerty Exclusive" they actually talked to Anne Marks the Equality Summit organizer and Andrea Shorter one of the Equality Summit Executive Committee co-chairs:
Shorter tell us she is "appreciative of what people like Robin Tyler has done for the community" and she acknowledges that the No on 8 campaign had a reputation for being a "closed door campaign," but says of Tyler's decision to resign, "You can't have it both ways."

You can't complain about transparency and openness and reaching out to as many different groups as possible and then circumvent the process that's working to make those very things happen. We can continue to stay stuck in a pattern that suggest that nobody can trust anybody or we can move forward and certainly learn from the mistakes of the No on 8 campaign, but this is meant to be a serious and honest discussion with community leaders and groups about winning marriage equality. Are we more concerned with how to move forward or are we going to stay stuck?

Shorter says that while no decision regarding press access has been made, the question is not an all-or-nothing proposition, saying:

We want to be transparent, but we don't want to be stupid about it.

You're going to have a bunch of equal right activists, some of them neophytes, meeting an talking for the first time and the question is, "Do we want to be operating in a fishbowl? Are we going to have CNN, MSNBC standing there at every plenary and meeting session?"

The point is we all want marriage equality and we have to have honest discussions to do that.

We asked whether gay media outlets with a vested interest in the issue should be allowed to attend, even if only in an off-the-record position (only a question, and not something Queerty agreed to sign on to). Shorter laughed: "Like I said, we haven't had this discussion yet, but what's funny is that there's also the argument that reporter's journalistic integrity and objectiveness mean that they can't really be considered part of the community."

[...]

And since Queerty is not an objective news source, here's our two cents:

We were as critical of the failed No on 8 campaign as anyone. In fact, if you look at our coverage since last year's election it's safe to say Queerty is probably the No on 8 campaign's biggest critic (it's a toss-up between us and the L.A. Weekly, really). We stand by those criticisms and will continue to explore why that campaign failed so that the same mistakes are not repeated.

That said, the Equality Summit is an important and useful thing. From all appearances so far, any group wanting to take part is welcome — that's inclusiveness. As much as we're advocates for journalistic access, inviting all media to all sessions would turn the summit into a press conference, not a strategy session. Do you really want Sean Hannity attending the Equality Summit? (Or a roving Bill O'Reilly producer ready to ambush?) Of course not, but if don't want them, you must agree, then, that some decisions regarding press access need to be made — and by all accounts the planning committee of the Equality Summit will do so, but haven't yet.

Anne Marks tells us that right now, the planning process is just restarting from the holiday break and that there should be an agenda by next Monday. Before branding the planners of the Equality Summit an evil, power-mongering, hermetic cabal, why don't we give them a chance to act first?

The gay blogger kangaroo court yesterday sentenced the Equality Summit before it's even had a chance to commit a crime. We know you all want a piece of the Prop. 8 action, but try to get both sides of the story before rushing to judgment.

And there, ya go, folks! That's journalism. Congrats, Queerty!

1 comment:

  1. i'm sorry. i don't see any clear story coming out in your quotes that says anything but the fact that this group is already speaking bureaucratic doubletalk and are very likely to have meetings that are closed to the press.
    As we have learned in the past, they won't really be closed door, they will become at best a game of telephone warping what does happen or at worst will mean that only infiltrators on the other side will have the real story.
    Give reporters and viewers at home credit for being able to tell a newbie from an official position and they will likely surprise you with their insight.
    The one thing that is clear is that no one has the right absolute answers except we do know that we can win by being honest about who we are and what we're doing.
    If affinity type groups plan actions in private so that their plans for civil disobedience can have an impact then there is rationale for being secret.
    Making the overall discussions of strategy and point of view secret is Dick Cheney school.
    Sorry. Blogs were right.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting at MadProfessah.com! Your input will (probably) appear on the blog after being reviewed.