Connect with us

Gay Porn As Blog Content. Mediaite Weighs In.

Published

on

What I intended to be a simple resignation and explanation seems to have turned into a bit of a media game of ping pong over gay porn as content, the latest round starting with Michael Triplett’s “Does The Gay Media Have A Sex Addiction?” in Mediaite yesterday afternoon, followed by Joe.My.God sharing his thoughts.

So I thought I’d share a few of mine.

I wrote Michael to thank him for doing the piece because, as I said, our community still needs to and wants to have this discussion. What I’ve learned about the discussion is, perhaps unsurprisingly, my readers, by a large majority, don’t find “porn as content” acceptable, and readers at other sites, like, Bilerico, do. That’s not a judgment, merely a statement of fact, no more surprising or judgmental than some folks like Pepsi, and some like Coke.

But the Mediaite piece does, as one commenter put it quite well (and, full disclosure, I do know the commenter,) “conflate sexy ads, about which no one is complaining, with editorial content of a sexual nature, which was the subject of David’s concern.”

To be clear, as many have missed the point, I resigned because I don’t believe in porn-as-content. Sexy ads, OK. Porn as editorial content, not OK. Not in a serious news and opinion site.

That point, unfortunately, appears to have been cloudy, and even blogger Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God, for whom I have great respect, originally missed that. Of the Mediaite piece, Joe, in “How Sexy Is Too Sexy For Gay Blogs?,” first wrote that I quit over a porn ad. He later changed his post to read that it was a editorial piece, not an ad. But when I read Joe’s original piece, there were already 115 comments, so the point was missed by many. Oh well.

I have to hand it to Joe for actually asking the question, as I did of my readers. Joe (wryly!) wrote,

“Is JMG too porn-ish? Do you tend to dismiss an LGBT activism site as non-serious if they occasionally veer into sexual imagery? Obviously, this is a decades-old dilemma for gay print, but a relatively recent issue for gay blogs which are mostly read at work. Like you are doing right now.”

Back to my comments to the author of the Mediaite piece. I trust Michael won’t mind if I share with you some of my comments to him. Here’s a portion:

Most of all, I wish the discussion had veered into the issue of perception. If we want to be taken seriously as a community striving for equality, we need more people doing real journalism and not packaging it in between pornographic “editorial” content.

I think, and perhaps appropriately for the venue, you looked at the issue from, as you put it, “reality.”

“The reality, however, is that sites with a large gay male following like a little sexy with their news.”

I’ve always worked from the perspective of not trying to do what is expected, but what is possible. And I believe far more in journalism and in credibility and integrity than in “sexy pictures.”

Does sex sell? Of course. But that’s the easy way out. To me, and to many I know, quality, credibility, honesty, integrity, and working hard to achieve our equality is a lot sexier.

I’ll leave it at that.

OK, one last point.

Thank you. Thank you to everyone who emailed me, tweeted me, commented on this blog, DM’d me, texted me, called me, and offered their support. I am so very grateful for the wonderful readers I have here, and friends I have on Twitter and Facebook, and of course, in “real life.” Thank you for supporting me and my work and my goals, and thank you for sharing my work with others. That is a compliment so gratifying you cannot imagine.

id="hustle-embedded-id-1"

class="hustle-ui hustle-inline hustle-palette--gray_slate hustle_module_id_1 module_id_1 hustle-size--custom"

data-id="1"

data-render-id="0"

data-tracking="enabled"

data-intro="no_animation"

data-sub-type="inline"

style="opacity: 0;"

>
There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Video Appears to Show Federal Agents Preventing Doctor From Helping Shooting Victim

Published

3 hours ago

on

January 7, 2026

By

A video obtained by HuffPost appears to show federal agents preventing a man who identified himself as a physician from assisting the 37-year old woman fatally shot by an agent on Wednesday in Minneapolis.

In the video, a federal agent tells the man to “back up now,” while he shouts, “I’m a physician!”

Another voice, apparently a federal agent, says, “I don’t care,” while another says, “We’ve got EMS coming.”

When he says, “We have medics on scene, we have our own medics,” a bystander shouts, “Where are they?”

She continues, “How can I relax, you just killed my f – – neighbor!” then asks, “How do you show up to work every day?”

READ MORE: Johnson Set to Jet to UK as Shutdown Looms and Majority Shrinks

“You’re killing my neighbors, you’re stealing my neighbors, what the f – – man?”

The now-deceased woman, who has been identified as Renee Good, was shot “after a group of people began blocking officers during an immigration-related operation in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security said,” NBC News reported.

Some witness descriptions and videos that flooded social media conflict with official statements from DHS.

“Details remained in dispute,” The New York Times reported, “with President Trump saying the agents had acted in self-defense on social media, while state and local officials described federal accounts of the shooting with terms like ‘propaganda’ and ‘garbage.'”

According to BBC News, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said the officer “defensively shot to protect himself.” But Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey “disputes federal officials’ account of the shooting, and demands ICE agents leave the city.”

READ MORE: ‘Stalin-Level Propaganda’: White House Ripped for ‘Alternative’ J6 History in New Report

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Sick of Stupid’: GOP Senator Slams Top Trump Advisor

Published

5 hours ago

on

January 7, 2026

By

U.S. Senator Thom Tillis blasted the Trump administration over its continued, escalating push to acquire the autonomous territory of Greenland, denouncing the advice the President has received from a top advisor while emphasizing that the U.S. Senate is a co-equal branch of the U.S. government.

The Republican senior senator from North Carolina, described as “extremely fiery” by one congressional reporter, targeted Stephen Miller by name in a floor speech on Wednesday, saying that the White House Deputy Chief of Staff had said that “obviously, Greenland should be part of the U.S.”

“That is absurd,” Tillis responded.

“You know what makes me cranky?” the senator continued. “Stupid.”

Tillis, who serves as the co-chair of the Senate NATO Advisor Group, denounced Miller’s “insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the Kingdom of Denmark.”

READ MORE: Can Trump Take Greenland by Force Without Congress? Johnson Won’t Say, Walks Away

“Folks, amateur hour is over,” Tillis continued, before directing his remarks directly at Miller.

“You don’t speak on behalf of this U.S. Senator or the Congress. You can say, ‘it may be the position of the President of the United States, that Greenland should be a part of the United States,’ but it’s not the position of this government, because we are a co-equal branch.”

“One of two things happened with Greenland,” he said. Either President Trump “came up with the idea that maybe we should have Greenland as a part of our assets,” or “Mr. Miller or somebody else said, ‘Hey, this would be cool. Let’s take over Greenland.'”

“Well, that’s stupid, too,” Tillis declared. “And I’m sick of stupid.”

READ MORE: Dr. Oz: Seniors Should Delay Retirement to Boost the Economy

 

Continue Reading

News

Can Trump Take Greenland by Force Without Congress? Johnson Won’t Say, Walks Away

Published

6 hours ago

on

January 7, 2026

By

The White House has said that all options are on the table — including military force — for President Donald Trump to decide how he wants to acquire Greenland. But when asked if the Commander in Chief would need congressional authorization to take Greenland by force, Speaker Mike Johnson declined to give a definitive answer but suggested it might not be required — before walking away.

Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, is not for sale. The vast majority of its citizens do not want to be taken over by the United States. As for national security concerns, the U.S. already has a significant military foothold in Greenland through longstanding defense agreements with Denmark, including the Pituffik base.

Some legal experts say Trump would need congressional approval to use the U.S. military to take Greenland by force.

READ MORE: Dr. Oz: Seniors Should Delay Retirement to Boost the Economy

U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), an attorney and retired Air Force JAG colonel, on Wednesday told members of the U.S. Armed Forces that any Trump order to use military force against Greenland without congressional approval constitutes an illegal order.

“There is absolutely no legal justification whatsoever to use military force against a NATO ally, against Greenland,” he said. “If any military member, including the generals on down, to enlisted members, if any of them participate in the use of military force against Greenland without congressional authorization, they are following illegal orders. That’s simply a fact.”

But Speaker Johnson, a constitutional attorney, appeared to have a different — and less definitive — take.

Desjardins asked if Johnson could clarify if any U.S. military force in Greenland would have to be congressionally approved. Johnson replied, “Uh, no, I can’t, because, um, it depends on what that is.”

READ MORE: Johnson Set to Jet to UK as Shutdown Looms and Majority Shrinks

“Is that not a congressional power?” Desjardins asked.

“Congress has a responsibility to declare war,” Johnson continued. “I think there is no scenario where we would be at war with Greenland.”

“Under Article II,” Johnson added, “the president has broad authority as the commander in chief.”

After some more back-and-forth, Johnson walked away, saying, “Bye, guys.”

READ MORE: House GOP Math Gets Brutal After Republican’s ‘Sudden’ Death and Another Hospitalized

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.