From the New York Blade:
What Cothran isn’t telling us is that not only is she getting financial support from black churches, but they have also helped her land ads from big pharmaceutical companies such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbott Laboratories that pay for half the cost of the magazine, with the other half paid for by the black churches promoting “ex-gay” ads targeted to the African-American LGBTQ community.
She sounds like another “ex-gay for pay.”
The Blade article is an opinion piece, written by the Rev. Irene Monroe.
The writer does not substantiate the claim that the magazine is receiving support either from churches or from pharmaceuticals.
Nor does the writer explain whether the advertisers bought space before the magazine’s makeover, whether the advertisers knew of the makeover, or how black churches would have any influence with pharmaceutical marketing departments.
Ultimately, I think the article was an interesting and stimulating read, but it wasn’t informative. And it sure was bitter.
I’d like to add that I think a magazine owner such as Charlene Cothran should be free to do as she wants with her magazine, regardless of who helped her build the magazine in the past.
However, if a publisher affiliates closely with pro-racism, pro-prejudice or anti-science advocates, then readers and advertisers will naturally beware, once they learn of such immoral entanglements.
Rev. Monroe was at one time a writer for Venus so she has some insider info. However, it’s beyond me how she would know that pharmaceutical ads were procured by anti-gay churches. That one seems a bit agressive.
As for ex-gay church ads… well, someone could simply open the magazine and see if they’re there. If it’s full of ex-gay ads then Cothran is lying. If there are none, the Monroe is the one making unsubstantiated statements.
Cothran seemed to be saying there were a scattering of ads. But how many, and what size were the ads — postage-stamp black-and-white ads for ex-gay groups, or full-page full-color ads for Love Won Out and Focus on the Family?
Monroe assumes that the ads generated substantial revenue. How much? What were the ad rates?
My complaint is basically that the article contains no journalism, no research, just accusations. If XGW can find more writers, then hopefully we’ll be able to do the research that the mainstream and gay media ought to have been doing.
I do think that she has a right to do what she wants with her magazine. And readers have a right to not purchase it. I can’t imagine the “new” version doing well. When Rosie took control of her magazine and changed the focus, it died quickly.
I agree, Cothran can do what she pleases with her magazine.
However, the ex gay makevoer and those who have interest in her conversion can’t be as sustaining a group over the long term as the lesbian community was as a whole.
Perhaps straight folks AND ex gays together are more of a majority whole that CAN keep the magazine in business.
But what editorials would be there of interest that won’t eventually become prurient or completely based on made up numbers and conspiracy theories concerning the LGBT?
A regular visitor to the websites of Exodus, or Love Won Out or Family Research Council, anything of interest socio politically have to do with anti gay reporting.
Venus would pretty much have to do that, especially where it engages religious communities.
I guess if she wanted to sell out editorial integrity to such interests that IS her business.
But that also says something about ex gays with access to media in ways I don’t think they should be so eager to pat themselves on the back about.
I disagree with Timothy’s statement “If it’s full of ex-gay ads then Cothran is lying”. I’m not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. If a gay publisher becomes a Christian and renounces homosexuality, then one would expect the content of the magazine to change. Obviously, previous pro-gay advertisers would withdraw their advertising, and the publication is very likely to attract the support of anti-gay advertisers. This proves nothing about the true motivations behind the publisher’s actions.
Kerry,
Cothran said “Any support given usually comes in the form of an ad, here and there, but these ads are few and far between.”
If the magazine has an ad here and there, then the facts support her statement. If it’s full of ex-gay ads, the facts do not support the statement.
Hence, my conclusion “If it’s full of ex-gay ads then Cothran is lying”.