Gay Media Monopoly

Michael Bronski

While the Bush administration is considering a possible reversal of the Microsoft antitrust case activists in the gay and lesbian community are debating their own looming monopoly problems.

Three weeks ago, Henry Scott, the former owner of Out magazine sent a letter to over 200 queer activists: "I am writing because, as a leader in the lesbian and gay community, you have an opportunity to help halt an effort to create a dangerous monopoly among gay media."

This isn't Microsoft, but Scott's letter contained some alarming facts. Last April Los Angeles based Liberation Publications (LPI), which publishes the Advocate bought its biggest competitor New York based Out magazine. Between the Advocate's circulation of 88,000 and Out's of 112,000 Liberation Publications Inc's two front-line magazines now garnered a joint circulation of 200,000, which is estimated to be five times greater than its closest rival publication. Last February Planet Out announced that it was going to merge with LPI, a deal which is still in the works. But this news was eclipsed by the November 15 bombshell that PlanetOut and Gay.com – the two largest Internet companies that target queer viewers and readers – were going to merge. In a public letter the two firms stated: "The services of the two largest businesses serving the LGBT market will create a global media and services company that immediately reaches more than 3.5 million unique individuals a month and counts more than 1.6 registered users."

The gay marriage of PlanetOut and Gay.com leaves Gaywired.com, with 500,000 unique monthly users, as the next largest gay media outlet. And these figures don't tak into consideration that in 1996 LPI had purchased the Boston based Alyson Publications, one of the oldest and respected gay and lesbian trade book publisher, or that in March 1999 PlanetOut subsumed OnQ, a large queer on-line service, and last August bought into Gay Financial Network (gfn.com) and is now jointly selling advertising with them.

Scott's solution to this scenario is to bring in the big guns of anti-trust legislation and he urged that anyone concerned with an independent gay and lesbian media contact the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy and Evaluation/ Bureau of Competition to complain. Both agencies are, under Section 7 of the Clayton Act with scrutinizing mergers to name sure that they do not "lessen competition, or ...then to create monopolies."But what are the chances of the Feds stepping in too insure a free market for all queer voices? Probably pretty slim.

Nevertheless there are a host of signals that gay activists and media watchers find disturbing in this ongoing chain of events. Last November Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay, staunch conservative former editor of the New Republic and columnist for the New York Times Magazine, complained publicly about what he saw as the Advocate's fawning cover interview with Bill Clinton. This prompted Advocate editor Judy Weider to cancel Sullivan's upcoming piece on AIDS claiming "if we have Andrew write while he's tearing down the Advocate, it makes it look like we agree with his point of view." Weider's heavy-handed approach to political disagreements was upsetting to queer activists and writers. Andrew Sullivan does not need the Advocate to make a living, but many queer freelance writers – most with a far more liberal or leftist bent – do. Intentionally of not, Weider's ban on Sullivan (which she claims is temporary) sent the clear message that disagreements with Advocate editorial policy would not be welcomed or tolerated.

Even scarier was the Advocate's and Weider's direct involvement with the Millennium March on Washington last April, and in particular Equality Rocks, big-name March affiliated concert featuring Melissa Etheridge and George Michael. While many gay businesses co-sponsored the event both PanetOut and the Advocate were exceedingly generous – PlanetOut giving the March organizers 250,000 in cash and 750,000 in kind; the Advocate donating 425,000 in-kind with color ads in 20 issues. Critics have suggested that these organizations' direct involvement with an intentional political event might compromise their ability to cover it, but most egregious was that it was editor Weider herself who was on the production team of Equality Rocks. Wearing the duel hats of deciding on editorial copy – both Etheridge and Michael has been featured on the cover of the Advocate -- and working on a benefit connected to political groups that her magazine must cover Weider clearly violated basic journalist ethics.

This points to the most problematic aspect of a national gay and lesbian media that is increasingly owned by increasingly consolidated business interests. By working hand-in-hand with the political, legal, and social groups that they are reporting on both the Advocate and PlanetOut as well as the groups are continually caught in two distinct conflicts on interest. The obvious question: will the Advocate or PlanetOut be able to report honestly on political groups whom they institutionally support. But this problem is compounded by conflict of interest faced by the political groups. It costs a lot of money to do any politics – and gay and lesbian politics, with a small constituency who are asked repeatedly for money, are an even harder fund raising nut to crack. Sponsorship from gay owned businesses have become increasingly necessary to these fund raising efforts: Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The Victory Fund, and many large AIDS groups across the nation have all relied on corporate funding, and the main queer funding sources has been PlanetOut, Gay.com, and the Advocate/LPI. No matter what kind of job the Advocate and PlanetOut is doing with their reporting none of these groups are in a position to criticize them or hold them to a higher standard of journalism.

Ironically the strength of the gay and lesbian press and media in this country has been its fragmentation and its marginality. From the early 1970s a burgeoning national press – the Advocate as well as other publications, many of whom have folded – have been augmented by a strong and thriving local press which promoted a variety of social and political opinions, agendas, and attitudes. From bar rags to middle-of-the-road liberal to leftist leanings these publications – based in cities and generally free of the both the gains and the pressures of national advertising – were an independent voice for a wide range of politics. It was these publications that provided a necessary critique of both national organizations and publications. While there are still some city-based newspapers that do original reporting many others have folded, and even those that still exist increasingly use pre-packaged AP stories. As the national publications and the Internet companies began accumulating larger and larger amounts of readership and advertising many small weekly and monthly papers began to fail. While their individual importance may have been minimal their overall effect was hugely consequential. Henry Scott's use of "monopoly" may seem overstated, but the reality is that the gay and lesbian press in the U.S. has become increasingly located in the hands of a few and that will most likely have dire effects for the entire community.