It’s this kind of selling out that cheapens others’ impressions of gay people and weakens our cause. They need to make money, sure – but what kind of message does it send with such advertising? That gay men are so easily distracted by and obsessed with sex that they’ll buy just about anything if there’s a shirtless buff guy involved? It sounds like the Advocate is trying to be a “serious” publication, but using advertising as though it is the gay version of “Vogue” or “Cosmo.”

I’m surprised nobody caught this around 2005, but The Advocate online ran a story, bitching about the homophobia in American Idol’s initial auditions (the flaming queens screeching Madonna and Toni Braxton songs, etc.).

Within a week or two, what did The Advocate do? They deleted the article, hired somebody to give their so-called “witty” review of each and every second of every episode of Idol – PLUS they were running ads, hawking those “Best of”/”Worst of” American Idol DVD’s!

Talk about sell-outs!

The only good issue of The Advocate is one that’s in the recycle bin.

1. report a story.
2. tell a story.

Unfortunately, sometimes details get “lost” – and with especially sensitive and complex topics such as this one, people do make mistakes and mis-report – and even mis-represent – the facts at hand. Should they go uncorrected? no. But I’ve heard a rabbi condemn the Jewish writers at the NY Times for being “anti-Israel.”

I take in all media info – gay or straight – with a grain of salt. There’s always more than what’s being shown.

That being said, i don’t know the history of reporting in the Advocate. Maybe it’s spotless. Maybe a third “mishap” will open people’s eyes and cause a greater response.