Piss on THAT
I had a few paragraphs, trying to discuss some disparate themes. My POS computer dicked the dog and here I am with a blank page again. So I'll be brief and use someone else's words.
Regarding Gene Shalit and GLAAD's rush to be offended...too much of a rush apparently.
"Dear Damon [Romine], and Neil [Guiliano],
Peter Shalit here—Gene Shalit's son. I have been a member-supporter of GLAAD for years. I assume you were not aware of that, but I am disappointed that you did not do a little background research on my dad, or try to contact me, or attempt to reach my dad through me, before issuing your press release this past week calling him homophobic because of his review of Brokeback Mountain. I did notice the "editor's note" which mentioned that he has a gay son, i.e. myself.
By way of background, I am a gay man, a physician, serving a mostly gay patient population in Seattle, and author of Living Well, the Gay Men's Essential Health Guide, which is a guide to gay health for gay men. I frequently comment to people that I can't imagine having another job that would immerse me in the gay community as much as the one I have. The gay community is my life.
I say this because it's important background for understanding that my dad has always been completely loving and supportive of me, my life, my partners, and my choices. He wrote a piece about me in 1997 for The Advocate (currently posted on their home page)—and agreed to have his picture on the cover of the magazine—because what the piece says is true about how he feels and how he has always acted.
I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia. Of course he is not homophobic. Actually the truth is the opposite. Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not "defamation" and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character. The interpretation-generalization of this as "homophobic" is unfortunate and incorrect. It is precisely because my Dad is not homophobic that he felt free to criticize the move as he saw it, and not anticipate that he would be accused of homophobia for doing so.
(Incidentally, I loved the movie—and it sure isn't the first time I have disagreed with my dad about one of his reviews. I was sorry he didn't like it, but hey, these things happen. I have always felt that he was entitled to his opinion and I leave it at that.)
When I first saw your press release a few days ago my reaction was "goodness, this is silly" and I decided to sit tight and hope it would blow over. But it hasn't, judging by the e-mails I have received from friends, and the buzz I have seen online. People are concerned about these accusations about my dad, and some bloggers are talking about him as if he is an enemy of gay people. I decided to contact you because there could have been better ways to handle this situation, and I am hurt by your mischaracterization of my father, a man who does not have a molecule of hate in his being. It does not speak well for GLAAD, and it is not helping our community.
We are all really on the same side—you, my Dad, me, my family, our community. The gay community has enough enemies that we should not be attacking or alienating those who, such as my Dad, are part of our family and are our true friends. We may disagree with his opinion of a movie and his interpretation of a particular character, but that is his job as a critic to give his opinion. He may have had an unpopular opinion of a movie that is important to the gay community, but he defamed no one, and he is not a homophobe. It is you who have defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry. It is ironic and sad that an organization whose mission is to combat defamation has committed such an act itself, an act which amounts to character assassination with so little consideration of the repercussions.
I am happy to discuss this further with you by e-mail, or you can feel free to phone me... Sincerely, Peter Shalit"
My gut feel (admittedly thanks to general disrespect towards the politics most special interest [right and left]) is that GLAAD wanted the media attention.
They just were willing to ignore good sense and their beliefs to get it. They performed an uneducated character attack on a crappy reviewer (Shalit is 100% wrong about the film...factually wrong I might add).
Regarding Gene Shalit and GLAAD's rush to be offended...too much of a rush apparently.
"Dear Damon [Romine], and Neil [Guiliano],
Peter Shalit here—Gene Shalit's son. I have been a member-supporter of GLAAD for years. I assume you were not aware of that, but I am disappointed that you did not do a little background research on my dad, or try to contact me, or attempt to reach my dad through me, before issuing your press release this past week calling him homophobic because of his review of Brokeback Mountain. I did notice the "editor's note" which mentioned that he has a gay son, i.e. myself.
By way of background, I am a gay man, a physician, serving a mostly gay patient population in Seattle, and author of Living Well, the Gay Men's Essential Health Guide, which is a guide to gay health for gay men. I frequently comment to people that I can't imagine having another job that would immerse me in the gay community as much as the one I have. The gay community is my life.
I say this because it's important background for understanding that my dad has always been completely loving and supportive of me, my life, my partners, and my choices. He wrote a piece about me in 1997 for The Advocate (currently posted on their home page)—and agreed to have his picture on the cover of the magazine—because what the piece says is true about how he feels and how he has always acted.
I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia. Of course he is not homophobic. Actually the truth is the opposite. Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not "defamation" and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character. The interpretation-generalization of this as "homophobic" is unfortunate and incorrect. It is precisely because my Dad is not homophobic that he felt free to criticize the move as he saw it, and not anticipate that he would be accused of homophobia for doing so.
(Incidentally, I loved the movie—and it sure isn't the first time I have disagreed with my dad about one of his reviews. I was sorry he didn't like it, but hey, these things happen. I have always felt that he was entitled to his opinion and I leave it at that.)
When I first saw your press release a few days ago my reaction was "goodness, this is silly" and I decided to sit tight and hope it would blow over. But it hasn't, judging by the e-mails I have received from friends, and the buzz I have seen online. People are concerned about these accusations about my dad, and some bloggers are talking about him as if he is an enemy of gay people. I decided to contact you because there could have been better ways to handle this situation, and I am hurt by your mischaracterization of my father, a man who does not have a molecule of hate in his being. It does not speak well for GLAAD, and it is not helping our community.
We are all really on the same side—you, my Dad, me, my family, our community. The gay community has enough enemies that we should not be attacking or alienating those who, such as my Dad, are part of our family and are our true friends. We may disagree with his opinion of a movie and his interpretation of a particular character, but that is his job as a critic to give his opinion. He may have had an unpopular opinion of a movie that is important to the gay community, but he defamed no one, and he is not a homophobe. It is you who have defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry. It is ironic and sad that an organization whose mission is to combat defamation has committed such an act itself, an act which amounts to character assassination with so little consideration of the repercussions.
I am happy to discuss this further with you by e-mail, or you can feel free to phone me... Sincerely, Peter Shalit"
My gut feel (admittedly thanks to general disrespect towards the politics most special interest [right and left]) is that GLAAD wanted the media attention.
They just were willing to ignore good sense and their beliefs to get it. They performed an uneducated character attack on a crappy reviewer (Shalit is 100% wrong about the film...factually wrong I might add).
posted by Chuck | 3:12 PM
1 Comments:
Be that as it may, I have no problem using my small forum to heap scorn upon an organization that wants to limit personal opinions in conflict with their own. What makes this reaction comical is that is comes from film ignorance, not any legitimate bias. In short, they used his words to attack a specific bias, blissfully unaware that said bias clearly does not exist.
The man is a professional reviewer, dropping his opinion on some crappy morning program. Had *HE* linked the sexual predator comment to Jack being gay, then I could see the uproar. He didn't, so GLAAD did it for him, further lowering the discussion.
I guess I am silly, because I assumed that GLAAD would not waste time on such a trivial matter. I assumed every minority group had a similar organization...I was pointing out the inspidness of them all. NOW recently called for the resignation of Joe Paterno, who has coached Penn State since WWI or something, because he said something that didn't strictly adhere to their playbook.
I mock these people because they stand in the way of real progress, which only follows pointed and painful discussion...something every minority watchdog greatly fears it seems.
Shalit has no obligation to run anything by anybody. You must misunderstand me. I have no problem with GLAAD calling him out. That is their right. Common sense is not common. Nor is it required. If so, every one of these watchdogs would have folded up long ago.
As for Shalit, I quit taking him seriously with the first review I heard: Titanic. He liked it OK, but made it the key point that he didn't think ANYBODY could sit through it twice. Good call. It only made $1.8 BILLION DOLLARS. He is an idiot. But that's not a crime.
Post a Comment
<< Home