In a book review written last month, writer Jesse Monteagudo compared two gay activists: famous conservative Andrew Sullivan and not-so-famous liberal Wayne Besen, who is a longtime critic of the exgay movement.
Monteagudo asked why Sullivan is famous while Besen is “ghettoized” to alternative media.
The major difference between Besen and Sullivan: Besen is a liberal while Sullivan is a gay conservative. In fact, Besen’s unabashed liberalism is probably why he does not have the status of an Andrew Sullivan, whose “conservative soul” makes him more acceptable to the mainstream, corporate media.
I agree that Besen is disadvantaged, but I disagree on the reasons why. It has been my observation, after working for 15 years in the Washington media, that U.S. news media are generally biased against both liberals and conservatives. Working under constant and competitive deadline pressure, Washington and New York editors prefer to air the accessible, glossy, and easily digested groupthink of established Beltway think tanks and lobbyists. Ideas and programs that require explanation or careful thought are a poor fit for media whose profits are determined by maximizing the ad-friendliness of content and maximizing the number of ads viewed by consumers per page or per unit of time.
Sullivan has long capitalized upon some comforting and unchallenged assumptions of American culture, and his writing is concise, often witty. He soothes readers and he picks opponents carefully. Unfortunately, Sullivan’s soothing, his assumptions, got him — and most of the media establishment — into deep trouble in 2003 when they plunged into ill-considered endorsements of the Iraq war.
Where Sullivan’s strengths are wit and an affirmation of conventional wisdom, Besen’s approach is similar to that of Oliver Stone: He nails a controversial point of view with a sledgehammer and does so in a manner that makes several demands of the consumer: patience, an appreciation for context, time and resources to investigate the backstory, and a willingness to rethink assumptions.
Like conservatives such as GOP libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Besen struggles to achieve a media audience in an industry that suffers from attention-deficit disorder, an industry that sidelines those who rethink fundamental assumptions of who we are and how we should behave. Like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore, Besen unleashes his opinions in a take-no-hostages style that offends some people, but which has a historic role in effective activism.
Perhaps that’s one difference between Wayne Besen and Ex-Gay Watch:
We take hostages. 😀
Could it simply be that Andrew posts to his blog a dozen or more times a day while Wayne posts about once a week?
Or it could be that Sullivan is a media professional whose prior work positions in the print media and with politicos give him a “leg up” or “that certain cache” with other journalists.
Posting pace and industry reach both count for a lot. And XGW is in no position to boast on either of those points.
Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage have affected my political viewpoints more than any other. Except for the war and health care issues, I generally agree with Andrew 100% (except maybe for faith issues too–he is willing to sometimes put aside reason for some interior feeling). Besen–it’s easy. He comes off as hateful, spiteful, and stubburn. Do I agree with him about most things? Yes, but it is his tone. I can’t recommend his writings to friends or family. He seems to present himself in a way that the Christian Conservatives view gays. In fact, he seems threatening at points. I have said here before that his book on exgay ministries could have been an important book except that his tone is so harsh. Andrew is also willing to apologize or change info based on new info. Besen does not have that reasonableness. I wish he did because he could be an important voice for the community.
My instinct is to dislike the style of folk like Wayne Besen, but I have come to realize that there’s room for all sorts when it comes to activism. It’s like in Britain, we have the groups OUTrage! and Stonewall. The former (headed by Peter Tatchell) tends to be in-your-face with its stunts, where the latter has a more mainstream, “respectable” approach. But it’s different strokes for different folks. They have both achieved good things in their own way.
I visit the exgay group on Yahoo occasionally. It’s a bizarre collection of wacko’s, nut jobs, and the occasional sincere person who wants help. They hate Wayne over there – passionately. He must be doing something right because he’s pushing all their buttons.
Wayne has worked hard in the past year to put together coalitions to protest Exodus’ Love Won Out conferences. This is not easy work and if Wayne was truly as strident as he appears in his blog he wouldn’t have been able to do it. While we all can yap yap yap on blogs, Wayne’s has been out there making rubber hit the road.
The elephant in the room that everyone wants to ignore at XGW is religion. Religion is the problem and meeting it head on with arguments about the meaning of Greek words, or the social standards of the Greek & Roman era, or someone’s strong feelings that Jesus approves of them is not going to ever be effective with Exodus or James Dobson.
What is XGW’s strategy? It’s not clear to me whether XGW wants Exodus to reform or just go away. Pushing Alan Chambers to institute policies to protect minors or to speak out against hate crimes is irrelevant . Don’t we want them instead to disband and give their remaining funds to PFLAG? Calling them on their lies and inconsistencies is great, but I fear that we’re just helping them refine their message.
Gordo, I completely agree with your assessment of both Wayne Besen and the exgay Yahoo group.
Gordo,
I’m not sure I quite understand your meaning here, can you clarify?
XGW is a watchdog. We point out instances where Exodus and other ex-gay organizations use junk science, dogmatic scriptural interpretation, false testimony, political coercion or any other deception in their efforts. Do we agree with their ultimate goals? No, not at all. But we do believe that individuals have a right to live their lives as they see fit as long as they are not infringing on another’s right to the same. So we are not calling for Exodus to close the doors, pe se. But we do believe that, if they were completely honest about what they are saying, the doors probably would close.
There will always be those whose beliefs are in conflict with something in their lives. How they work that out is up to them. In this case, we just want to give them the facts before they take a certain course. And for those that are perfectly happy about their sexual orientation, their lives should not be compromised by the civil repercussions of Exodus’ lobbying efforts.
And of course, we can’t do this job without the secondary effect of Exodus using our observations to refine their message – we’ve discussed this at length internally and there seems no way around it.
We are working on this and will post it as a mission statement as soon as possible. Does that help?
We are working on this and will post it as a mission statement as soon as possible. Does that help?
Don’t get me wrong – I love XGW – read it every day. I would contribute if you’d put up a tip jar.
I’d like somehow to be more involved in efforts to protect young people from ex-gay ministries. Back 30some years ago when I was a teenager, I could drift along under the radar of my parents and church and figure things out. No one suspected that my extensive collection of Broadway musicals meant anything. Today, I doubt I would escape suspicion. We need to do something to help these kids – to at least give them a safe space and the time they need to develop and figure things out for themselves. Alan and his sad and closeted cohorts can do what they will with adults, but as we’ve seen in the past year, Love Won Out was aimed squarely at parents who had suspicions about their children.
I suspect that the number of people who have made peace between their religon and their homosexuality is small. By far, most people I know have left their beliefs behind. XGW would profit from (1) a contributing writer who represents former believers and (2) more tolerance of those who don’t believe.
Mike, with all respect… we don’t take hostages.
Hostages are most often innocents, typically civilians, held to ransom for someone’s selfish end.
eg: hostages are people raised from the cradle to think that God will be very, very angry if they or anyone else is happily gay. So angry — (spitting chips type angry, in fact) — that he may even send a hurricane to Florida or drown New Orleans. Because He Loves You. So, we got to stop them/me. I know this… because an over-weight, over-compensated, under-educated, under-empathetic pastor told me so. No rhyme, no reason, no evidence — but way too much traditional ignorance and way too much traditional superstition. And way too much hysteria.
We take prisoners of war…you mean, no???
And, I think, we also just saw, identified and shot gordo’s elephant… it’s not an endangered species of elephant, BTW…
happy now gordo 🙂 David, don’t blame me — you asked!
And, I think, we also just saw, identified and shot gordo’s elephant… it’s not an endangered species of elephant, BTW…
From long-time observation I’ve noticed that not all commenters are equal. Some can get away with snarky comments about the elephant, and some get admonished by merely noticing said beast.
The elephant keepers are very sensitive about these things.
I tend to agree. The challenge is finding someone who is not at the same time hostile toward people of faith. Most of those I have met who profess no belief did at one time, and were either hurt or jaded. This is not to say that they are not valid in their disbelief, but it does often lead to a degree of animosity toward religion or faith in general.
We have two main reasons for treating people of faith with respect: 1) it is the civil thing to do, and 2) most of those who desire to attempt a change in their sexual orientation are people of faith. Counseling them to discard that faith is not a viable option, nor would we want to try anyway. We already have Exodus telling them they must discard one integral part of themselves, compounding that with a counter demand is just as cruel in my estimation.
I think the bottom line is this; seeing faith as the problem is a faulty assumption – it is the abuse of people’s faith in that is destructive.
Should I be offended? All this inuendo is giving me a headache 😉
@grantdale,
Thank you for providing an excellent example of my point! And yes, I know I asked for it, lol.
@gordo
Check your email.
How is this different than Peter LaBarbera using a particularly offensive gay person or activity to represent all gay people? It makes nice snark, but I’m not sure you will have helped anyone who is truly in a dilemma. That’s my point about all of this. We have loads of websites that preach to the choir, that cast a wide scatter shot and hit a lot of decent people in the process, but XGW can’t do that and accomplish our goals at the same time.
hmm, gordo, if you mean us — at times — sure. I think the fact that nobody is actually sure what our personal beliefs are (or are not) helps that. Our snarkiness is purely snarky.
There is a reason for nobody knowing, of course. We don’t actually tell.
It is still (mostly) considered rude in Australia to go banging on about one’s personal religious beliefs. That sort of behaviour is creeping in — and I do mean creeping — from “that” side of the Pacific, but is unyet no real blockage to polite social intercourse in Australia. We like the family culture/tradition thing, but we’re not so strong on the godliness bit. Or, rather, the “I am, but you’re not” godliness bit.
Sigh. But, then anyone of us Aussies who go online are also well and truly quite OK working within an environment dominated by American’s and their, urgh, socio-religious behaviour.
Jeez. How else do you think we could not bat an ironic eyelid over the fact that your Prez is fighting a war on behalf of God against people who are also fighting a war on behalf of God.
(God’s own opinion, as ever, remains the mystery… /snort)
I think XGW is open to all sorts of religious opinion, per se, but am also aware that some people take theirs very seriously. These things have a habit of degenerating into a rabble. Car-bombs-in-a-market type of thing. David’s job at such times is not one to be envied.
Which brings me back as to why Australians tend not to bother people in the first place…
I agree! There should be an XGW tip jar.
I get the impression XGW is vying for THE place where diverse media can come to get another view on matters relating to religion and gays. It’s not the bailiwick of the HRC. I doubt Andrew Sullivan should be the spokesperson for all religious gay issues except a good portion of them who are Catholic. Wayne Besen has the moxie and I appreciate his willingness to go to battle on the public frontlines.
XGW should be the source where people can go to get abject honest answers and enlightenment and what the main-stream-media should be providing for a balanced report/expose’/article when they report on gays in the realm of religion. The hard part is garnering respect from the media. You do that by the contributors at XGW and policing the content.
Maybe XGW should be divided into two parts. Much like Mr. Sullivan restricts open-forum-like comments, maybe XGW should more clearly define the “official” responses and only provide an adjunct area for open-forum commenting. Somewhere the media is not overwhelmed by the seemingly “cattiness” of some remarks in our discussions. It detracts from the professionalism…no?
The Independent Gay Forum serves somewhat of a good example…eh?
But, please, do not interpret my ideas as denigrating to those here who comment. I really love to read these responses. I have great admiration for most, if not all, who comment here. There is something to learn by the responses to “Mary” and “Phillip” I have read.
Eh?
(Did I spend too much time in Canada recently?)
I actually would have to partially agree with the initial assessment that much of it does, in fact, lie in partisan politics. Compared with the media and political views of the broader world, only a tightly constricted range is represented by the “mainstream” U.S. media, and it ranges from moderate to radically right.
I don’t think this is mutually exclusive from the argument that some messages are easier for an attention-deficient media: conservative messages really are simpler, more reductionist, and tend to argue for a black-and-white perspective without regard to context. Progressive views are rarely so, and it’s the attention to nuance and comfort with ambiguity that likely leads some individuals to be progressive to begin with (there was actually a great meta-analysis on this in Psychological Bulletin, July 2003, that found across research of the past half century that this is, indeed, the case). Case in point: the Cohen interviews on CNN vs. The Daily Show. CNN failed to so much as do basic background coverage, while The Daily Show’s journalism got him thrown out of the ex-gay movement. Shallow, superficial coverage supports the right – as easy as that.
As other news agencies began a race-to-the-bottom with Fox, coverage suffered, has become more superficial, and more of us have turned to sources like the internet to supplement shoddy television and print media. It’s not surprising that as the media has nosedived off the right end of the spectrum that the “blogosphere” has been claimed by the left.
I don’t find Sullivan particularly tasteful, anyway, particularly his ethics of posting ads for bareback sex regardless of partner sero-status – just shameful.
BTW, I’d also like to add that I think it’s a terrible misperception that Beson is, in any way, hostile. The LGBT community is under a heavily funded assault, both at the ballot box and through PR targeting our families. To paraphrase an old adage, if you’re not as angry as Beson, you just aren’t paying attention.
David — we get your point (above will help).
At the same time we also get gordo’s et al (which I “think” we summed up)
There is a very sincere, deeply held, and as valid viewpoint that “people” in such a situation would be best served by throwing personal faith out the window. No ifs, no buts.
The heart of it: the whole debate — if it can in fact be described as such — about whether God hates or loves homosexuality is something that should be challenged at it’s very basic: whether personal religious belief serves to illuminate any agreed fact that shall lead to greater knowledge, or understanding, between people who do have to live together.
At the end of the day, you’ve still got two warring teams who both claim to know what is obviously not open to any proof. So, therefore, should we simply drop “it” — religion — as part of the discussion?
ie: how much easier and less heated would a discussion about securing legal protections for gay couples be if that type approach was to be adopted?
It should be a priori no more insulting, or hurtful, to note here that people’s religious opinions diverge widely — with at least the hope of an amicable cohabitation, even so — than it should be to note that some people claim “God hates Fags.”
And again: we have described an opinion. (as to our’s, see above post).
Actually, Mike A’s thought’s about why Bridges Across did ultimately bomb — despite best intentions from many — may help any further thoughts on this sort of umm “thing”.
Tricky, for you, as we said.
Sigh, and probably still started a silly war by asking for no war in any case… /slap
We already have Exodus telling them they must discard one integral part of themselves, compounding that with a counter demand is just as cruel in my estimation.
Does it matter to you whether or not their religion is true? That seems to be an important question to me.
While I agree somewhat with the notion that media tends to gravitate towards quoting “established” professionals and “think tanks,” that is still no excuse for lack of research or covering the bases when doing a story. For years, media has attempted to blame their fast deadlines and quick need for accessibility for plain ole shoddy, sometimes half-baked reporting, and there is no ethical foundation for a responsible press to take sanctuary in that reality.
Perhaps what is more telling is that the “mainstream” media certainly has no problem quoting nutcases from an array of fringe rightwing groups on just about any issue, including issues which have nothing to do with them. A recent example would be a national AP story which went out over the wires at the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend about the annual gay party in Pensacola. While this event has been going on for well over 20 years, suddenly AP believed a story about “acceptance” was important, including quotes from some local Baptist minister who was “concerned” but not including any quotes from local GAY participants.
While we can claim that Besen hits a point with a sledgehammer, what is the media excuse for publishing nonsense from the likes of Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber or the wacky Wildmons other than a desire to sensationalize an issue and focus on one point of view? Moreover, when the GLBT community is covered this way in the “mainstream” media, we aren’t viewed as part of the audience – instead we are treated as if we are the “other”. . .as if we won’t notice the bias in coverage and should understand that it is aimed at the rest of the population.
We partially have ourselves to blame for that debacle. No one has appointed Andrew Sullivan the spokesmodel for “reasonable” gay people, even if he likes to think of himself that way. But unlike the straight white male minority, one spokesmodel from OUR community is treated as an absolute representation, while we are to expect quotes from the straight white male minority to be representative of an individual or small group. The media, most of whom have little training in covering issues in our community and have their own personal biases, perpetuate that image about all groups other than the dominating social and economic minority.
Would you have us become arbiters of faith now?
There is a very sincere, deeply held, and as valid viewpoint that “people” in such a situation would be best served by throwing personal faith out the window. No ifs, no buts.
Many people of faith believe that the above way is the easy way out. Nothing is further from the truth. Letting go of every comforting notion and leaving behind friends and family who can’t stand to watch the journey is hard. I started out on the journey convinced that my faith wasn’t authentic and looking for Truth. It took 3 years of hard work and I never expected to arrive where I did. Friends and family still have no respect for my journey. They believe it was all an effort to cut my conscience to fit my conduct.
@Kevin – I don’t believe the main stream media is evil, but they are lazy and addicted to the rush of sensationalism, where ever they can find it. Let’s face it, PornoPete gives good copy.
Gordo, the mass media are addicted to the 20-percent profit margins that are demanded by their investor-owners.
When investors don’t get their way, management is thrown out and the company gets sold. That happened to the Knight Ridder newspaper chain (where I worked for more than a decade) last year, the Tribune newspaper-TV chain earlier this year, and now it’s starting to happen at the Wall Street Journal.
With a requirement for that level of profit, investigative journalism becomes impossible. The only types of “news” that sell so profitably in a mass market are: 1) tabloid sensationalism, 2) sports/entertainment, and 3) product-placement slots, in which copy is written by the advertisers and parroted by the publication or TV show.
Profit method number three resembles the strategy of Exodus, come to think of it: Politically partisan “counselors” from NARTH and yellow journalists at AFA, Focus and CWFA write the copy, Exodus parrots that copy. When someone questions why sexual and spiritual strugglers should be taking their advice from parrots, Exodus plays the victim card.
What would I know about such things… I’m only a trained monkey. 🙂
I believe Wayne and Andrew serve entirely different purposes and comparing them seems odd. They are both gay and they both blog and that’s about where the differences end.
My impression is that Wayne writes specifically for a gay audience. His language, cadence, word selection are all part of this culture and background. His approach is anger and indignation and Wayne is very effective at what he does.
Andrew is more broad in both his interests and in his presentation. His presentation is easier for a straight reader to associate with.
We need both approaches.
Why must there be a comparison? It’s like trying to compare apple pie with borsch. Sure more folks like applie pie, but for those whose life experience includes borsch it is not something they would give up for all the apple pie at Marie Callendars.
I actually worked with Wayne on an HRC publication back in 2000 on reparative therapy. I’ve watched Wayne’s latest efforts with interest and appreciate his willingness to join fray. I agree, wholeheartedly, that he sometimes comes across as shrill and catty. But, to be fair…the ex-gay movement’s voices come across even more shrill and virulently hostile.
I love XGW and stop by daily. The information I find here has prompted me on several occasions to action. Put out the tip jar!
As far as mission? To help present the truth about the horrible effects of reparative therapy and to see the day that these people are held to answer for what they’ve done.
It’s really very simple. Sullivan was the Editor of the New Republic. Besen wasn’t. Plus, Sullivan opines on a variety of issues, whereas Besen is more of a one-trick pony. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But who is cable news going to call on 2 hours notice for a 3-minute snipe session–a regular commentator or an activist?
It also helps that Sullivan is, frankly, a conservative. Paying attention to Besen would open the media up to attacks that they are “liberally biased.” The only thing worse than a liberal commentator is a liberal that is a full-fledged member of the homosexual agenda.