Ostensibly, Noonan’s main point was about the importance of political issues that don’t have to do with the ubiquitous economic crisis that is also quite apt to pepper a conversation. Besides offering little evidence that the American public is, in fact, more worried about social issues than economics ones (she supports it with: “There are often signs in various polls that those things may dwarf economic concerns”), the article has another major flaw. Make no mistake: this is not a story about an angry liberal attacking a perceived conservative newspaper. I would hope anyone reading Mediaite regularly would realize how foolish it is to brand a newspaper based on its op-ed pages. We’re past that tired debate, aren’t we? This is the story of poor journalism.

Noonan’s problem is that she hinges on homophobia. She uses Adam Lambert as an example of everything that’s going wrong with America and its family values.

I don’t mean to make too much of it. In the great scheme of things a creepy musical act doesn’t matter much. But increasingly people feel at the mercy of the Adam Lamberts, who of course view themselves, when criticized, as victims of prudery and closed-mindedness. America is not prudish or closed-minded, it is exhausted. It cannot be exaggerated, how much Americans feel besieged by the culture of their own country, and to what lengths they have to go to protect their children from it.

Translation from poorly codified indiscretion: Gay people are ruining America. And Ms. Noonan? Saying Adam Lambert felt like he was the victim of bigotry doesn’t refute…um…anything.

Reading Noonan’s article is as unbearable as listening to Carrie Prejean’s infamous pageant response (especially when you read the comments of both). In reviewing both ad nauseum, I can’t ignore disturbing shorthand homophobia. It’s a not-so-subtle way of talking that allows people of like minds to say just about everything except the offensive things they actually want to say. They have an easy circumvention: values. They might even actually convince themselves that values are at stake when the real cause is the fear of change. What’s scarier is that we’ve come to accept the logic that gay people equal bad values. Even as I read Noonan’s article, I disagreed with her pander to the cynic before I disagreed with the way she paints Adam Lambert as antithetical to all that is good. But unlike Noonan, I’ll prove my point: Gay people have values, too.

As I said, though, this is about poor journalism. Good journalism, I think, should rest itself on solid reasoning. Without distrust for the “alternative” lifestyle Adam Lambert now represents, Noonan’s piece comes across as aloof and out of touch. But with it, she rallies the base. Proof? That fact that she didn’t write this article after the Britney and Madonna kiss.

So the question now is, shouldn’t we demand journalism that speaks through ingenuity instead of ignorance?

Yesterday, GLAAD was forced to issue a second press release to try to clarify why it was giving ABC a pass for banning Lambert from Jimmy Kimmel Live and ABC’s New Years Rockin’ Eve.  But now, after a day of endless criticism online, GLAAD has shifted its position and now thinks ABC does have a double standard after saying yesterday it didn’t.

“We appreciate ABC’s commitment to gay and transgender inclusion in other programming,” GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios said in the one paragraph statement. “However, let us be clear that GLAAD remains steadfast in our assertion that Adam Lambert is being subjected to a double standard by ABC as an openly gay performer. We do not support ABC cancelling Adam Lambert’s past and future performances. We urge the community to reach out to ABC and express their concerns that Adam Lambert is being subjected to a double standard.”

That’s a very different position than what GLAAD took just 24-hours earlier, when the group said “It would appear that the kiss between Adam Lambert and his keyboardist did not factor into ABC’s decision.”

So why the dithering?

GLAAD has long been criticized for being irrelevant and more interested in pleasing corporate donors–including ABC and the other networks–than advocating for LGBT issues.  Under former president Neil Giuliano, the organization’s mission and staff expanded but became less involved in entertainment advocacy. It also came under criticism for giving its seal of approval to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

Under Barrios–who joined GLAAD in September after a career as  a former legislator in Massachusetts who went on to head Blue Cross Blue Shield foundation in the state–the organization continues to be unfocused.  Before Lambert, GLAAD spent November switching its positions on the “faggot” episode of South Park, first slamming the animated show before saying it changed its mind.

These flip-flops and lack of direction were the focus of criticisms the day after GLAAD approved ABC’s Lambert exile.

Gay activist and Sirius radio host Michelangelo Signorile tweeted that Barrios had turned own the opportunity to appear on his radio show.  Earlier in the day, Signorile tweeted “What is wrong with this group? We must stop them. GLAAD is useless most times, hurting us other times” and “U ask how can GLAAD back ABC re: Lambert? Easy: ABC buys tables @ their endless awards. Not media watchdog; more like puppy.”

At gay news and gossip site Queerty, the bloggers said “GLAAD’s involvement in the Lambert situation is actually harming the gay community. As our self-appointed representatives, GLAAD is telling America that ABC’s treatment of a gay man is just fine, nothing to see here, move along.”

There’s no question GLAAD is in a tough spot.  ABC does have a good record of featuring positive portrayals of LGBT people and programming doesn’t get much gayer than ABC’s hit Dancing With the Stars. But the network’s kneejerk reaction to Lambert’s antics on the American Music Awards has not been a profile in courage and GLAAD has only made the situation worse by shifting its position on ABC’s behavior on a daily basis.

While fans shouldn’t expect Lambert to gyrating with Ryan Seacrest on ABC this New Years Eve, the more interesting dance to watch may be how GLAAD recovers from its blunders.

“It would appear that the kiss between Adam Lambert and his keyboardist did not factor into ABC’s decision,” GLAAD’s president Jarrett Barrios said in a joint statement with ABC. “ABC has a history of positive gay and transgender inclusion that includes featuring kisses between gay and lesbian couples on-air.”

GLAAD appears to have bought the network’s argument that Lambert’s act at the AMAs was different from what he’d done during rehearsals and they just can’t risk a Federal Communications Commission sanction. But many people think the network is overreacting and that focusing on Lambert’s man-on-man behavior smacks of a homophobic double standard that isn’t applied to women-on-women behavior or heterosexuals.

Barbara Walters, who will feature Lambert on her end-of-the year “Most Fascinating People” special on ABC, said on The View Dec. 3 that the concern about FCC fines was what caused the exile, but fellow panelists―including Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg―pointed to other examples where women like Madonna had been sexual on stage without repercussions from the networks.

GLAAD’s announcement was greeted with skepticism by some who believe ABC’s exile was caused by homophobia. “Amazingly (or perhaps not), GLAAD seems to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker,” a blogger at AfterElton said about ABC’s FCC excuse.

The news of the ABC performance ban came after Lambert tweeted Dec. 2 that “Yes, sadly friends, ABC has cancelled my appearances on Kimmel and NYE. :( don’t blame them. It’s the FCC heat.”

The concern over an FCC fines appears to come from a complaint filed by Liberty Counsel, which describes itself as “dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.” The complaint by the group with a long history of anti-gay rhetoric and litigation was filed Nov. 24 against ABC for “airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance” where Lambert “simulated oral sex, simulated digital penetration, simulated sadomasochistic conduct and engaged in homosexual open-mouth kissing.”

The ABC Ban was discussed on The View yesterday:

Like, seriously. I could have sworn I saw Jimmy Kimmel and Ben Affleck dressed in mesh and lamé for “I’m F*ing Ben Affleck,” the blockbuster follow up to the mega-blockbuster “I’m F*ing Matt Damon.” But let’s keep it clean, kids! As EW’s Michael Slezak points out:

ABC is the home of allegedly family-friendly Dancing With the Stars, where popular pro Derek Hough celebrated a win this past season in the “Group Mambo” round by forcibly thrusting partner Joanna Krupa’s head into his nether-regions. (Lambert fans are also dismayed that their man has become a possible FCC pariah despite the fact that Pink and a male dancer executed a similar “please come closer and examine my zipper” dance move — with tongue! — during the 2004 Billboard Music Awards on Fox.)

This seems like a pretty blatantly homophobic double-standard, if you look at that Pink moment (and I have to give that point to Glynnis MacNicol, who said that a woman doing it to a man would not be a big deal — she was right). An ABC spokesperson said, “We decided not to move forward with the booking at this time,” declining to elaborate, but what other reason could it be? How “unpredictable” he was? Come on, he’s been a good boy on all his appearances since then — even on his Twitter, where he cheerfully brushed off the cancellation (“Yes, sadly friends, ABC has cancelled (sic) my appearances on Kimmel and NYE. :( don’t blame them. It’s the FCC heat”) despite the fact that the FCC only applies “heat” before 10 p.m. and both Kimmel and his AMA performance hit the airwaves later than that.

EW’s Slezak is unimpressed with ABC’s “shaming as public relations strategy”; so am I. Give this kid — and the rest of us! — a break. It was an envelope-pushing musical awards show moment, and we’ve seen plenty of them across all the networks. Enough with holding this kid up as an example, especially to appease the less enlightened members of your audience. As Lambert says, “It’ll all blow over,” which is true — and then ABC will wonder why, in a few years, future superstar Lambert is signing huge deals with every other network.

In the meantime, look for Lambert on Jay Leno on Dec. 21st. As much as people bash Leno for being mild and un-edgy, he’s still welcoming him to his show. Maybe, for at least one night, his ratings will reflect it. If those Glambert fans have anything to say about it, I bet they will. ABC’s loss.

In the meantime, for your entertainment, I present Adam Lambert:

Now news of another ABC celebrity booking comes out – ABC’s 20/20 will air a Chris Brown interview next month.

TVNewser reports the interview was taped last weekend, and the Robin Roberts sit-down will air on December 11 in full, with clips airing on GMA earlier in the week.

There is clearly no direct correlation between the Lambert cancellation and the Brown booking, but the juxtaposition may raise concerns for those who were angered by ABC’s Lambert decision. ABC would have given Lambert a platform to perform again, and would also have gotten the attention-getting post-interview. Instead, that went to CBS, who picked up after ABC canceled, and the performance proved to be rather mild.

Meanwhile Brown, who pleaded guilty to assault of Rihanna, his girlfriend at the time, has done several interviews, going back to one with Larry King on CNN in August. This interview with Roberts will likely touch on the same themes. But it also provides a platform for Brown to talk comeback – and his new CD. It gets released a few days after the 20/20 interview airs.

Is it fair to compare the two situations? Maybe. The New York Post quotes an ABC source who says “the network is giving a mixed message,” while another insider says it is still being determined whether Brown will get to perform a song. But Lambert will be back on ABC again soon as well, as part of Barbara Walters‘ “Most Fascinating People” special.

On somewhat of a tangent, check out the only real way Brown can make his comeback – with his first big single and unique video for “Transform Ya”:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Lambert addressed the backlash, but offered no apology. And CBS didn’t seem completely comfortable with it either.

During the pre-taped interview with Maggie Rodriguez, discussed the criticism of the inappropriateness of his performance. “I’m not a babysitter, I ‘m a performer,” said Lambert.

But we didn’t get to the see key parts of the performance as CBS played the b-roll during Rodriguez’ questions, because CBS blurred out both the simulated oral sex and Lambert’s kiss with a band member. The kiss is especially telling, considering they did not blur out the Madonna-Britney kiss from 2003 earlier in the show, according to TVNewser. And it should be noted that the lower third described the segment as “Straight Talk” during the entire interview.

The double standard of his critics – and, apparantly, CBS’ The Early Show – is something Lambert touched on. “Lady Gaga, smashing whiskey bottles, Janet Jackson grabbing a male dancer’s crotch, Eminem talked about how Slim Shady has 17 rapes under his belt,” said Lambert. “There was a lot of very adult material on the AMAs this year, and I know I wasn’t the only one.”

More on double standard from Lambert: “If it had been a female pop performer doing the moves that were on the stage I don’t think there’d be nearly as much of an outrage at all…I think it’s a double whammy. I think it’s because I’m a gay male.”

With all the extra attention Lambert is gaining from the controversy, we’ll see next week if it affects album sales. At the very least, he’s become a topic of conversation, and a chance to talk about broader issues, regardless of what you think of the music.

Here’s the interview, and below, Lambert’s performance:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

At the end of the show, Lambert performed two songs, beginning with what will be his first single, “What Do You Want From Me.” While the CBSNews.com link says “Adam Lambert Live,” it appears the performance, which was stripped down and more of a ballad, was pre-taped as well. Lambert’s pre-taped performance on Late Show with David Letterman airs tonight:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

TVNewser reports Lambert’s planned performance on ABC’s Good Morning America has been canceled.

An ABC News spokesperson told TVNewser, “Given his controversial live performance on the AMAs we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning.”

But don’t expect Lambert to be held off ABC’s airwaves for long – GossipCop reports Lambert will be named one of Barbara Walters‘ “Most Fascinating People of 2009,” and will be part of her special on December 9. Still, there won’t be a performance.

The media push for Lambert’s new CD seems to be a combination of good and bad publicity for the pop star and his management team at RCA records, from the AMA closing performance to magazine covers. The buzz is certainly huge, but being canceled on a morning show watched by millions is a step backward. One question that has to be raised is whether the fact that Lambert is gay and the performance contained Lambert kissing (and more) male back-up dancers led to the cancellation? Would Lady Gaga’s sexual performance have led to the same result? When Access Hollywood caught up with Lambert after his AMA performance, he said he “wished people could open their minds up and enjoy things.”

In the same interview, he talked about what was coming up, teasing an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman for Monday night. That performance seems to have been pushed to tomorrow night, but will be taking place. Of the performance coming up on CBS, Lambert says, “the thing is, the song I’m performing on Letterman is a totally different energy.”

Here’s the Access interview:

> Update: CBS’ The Early Show booked Lambert for a performance and interview tomorrow morning instead.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Already, she has groomed another decade’s worth of new talk show hosts. She ordained Mr. McGraw in 2002, and his talk show, “Dr. Phil,” now ranks second behind her own hour. She followed up with “Rachael Ray” in 2006 and “The Dr. Oz Show” this fall. “Dr. Oz” is already a hit. And now she is developing a program for Nate Berkus, her favorite interior designer, for fall 2010…The shake-up may also make more room for lower-rated talk shows by Martha Stewart, Tyra Banks and Bonnie Hunt, among others. Looking farther afield, Ms. Couric, whose CBS News contract is up in 2011, has long been mentioned as a possible syndicated star.

All great ideas, and it would certainly be interesting to see Couric try and rekindle her daytime fan base. That said, it’s hard to envision any of these people filling Oprah’s shoes. While she certainly started out as merely a popular talk show host, Oprah became in the last decade or so, evolved into a sort of national mentor around whose ideas and beliefs people (the country, one might argue) shaped their outlook on life. Probably it’s safe to say no one is taking life advice from Katie Couric, or Ellen, or Tyra Banks. Know who some people are taking life advice from these days? Glenn Beck.

Yes, granted it’s a different sort of life advice — I’m fairly certain that Oprah never went on a weeks-long diatribe comparing anyone to Chairman Mao — but different times call for different media stars! And Glenn Beck is nothing if not a media star to fit our politicized, polarized times. Instead of the Oprah life philosophy, which taught us to take responsibility for our own actions, Beck wants us to take responsibility for our politics (I think…sometimes his theories are difficult to keep up with amidst all the chalkboard razzle-dazzle).

Beck has already drawn Oprah comparisons from the New York Times, no less, for his Winfrey-like effect on book sales. However, this weekend’s much-covered announcement of his 100 year plan elevates him to the realm of (potential) movement leaders. I still don’t think Beck has his eyes on the presidency (and in the words of James Poniewozik, “I don’t believe that I have done anything to deserve being that lucky as a columnist”) but read the following statement from Beck regarding his ‘plan” and then swap in diet, or food, or ‘best life now’ (or the Secret) for freedom, or values, or founders…and voila! You have a somewhat scary successor to the 90′s Oprah phenom.

I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.

- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

The question (or one of them) obviously remains: Will Beck still have the media clout necessary to summon crowds of people at “the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country” come August 28, 2010? Who knows. Oprah benefited from a media cycle that was mostly under her control. Also, she has years of success under her belt before launching into movement-like undertakings such as the Angel Network, or Living Your Best Life Now, etc. Glenn Beck has only actually been a national media phenom since roughly August; next August is a ways away in our current media and political cycle. Also, love her or not, Oprah was not perceived by much of the population as being unhinged. However, that said, judging by the current ratings a certain cable news channel enjoys (not to mention the pop stars du jour) the public apparently prefers their media figures as unhinged as possible.

Related:
Glenn Beck, The New Edward R. Murrow Of Fox News: Who’s The Next Target?
A Palin/Beck Ticket In 2012? The Mind Reels
The Only Person More Popular Than Glenn Beck Is Oprah

Instead, they’ll be about Adam Lambert‘s hip thrusts, J-Lo’s fall and a near nip-slip. Let’s take a look at the AMA moments you’ll be talking about today.

Adam Lambert simulates some oral sex with both a male and female back-up dancer. ABC decided to cut away from the performance to an awkward audience shot during the male-thrusting:

Jennifer Lopez performed her new song “Louboutins.” Right before her big dance break, she takes a spill jumping off a back-up dancer. The key part was after the performance when they cut to Lopez getting angry in a backstage look-in:

Kate Hudson had either a near nipple slip or an actual nipple slip that ABC blurred out. Either way, it was close, and when she adjusted her dress, the audience laughed in acknowledgment:

> Related: Rachel Sklar looks at “post-sexy”, and the performances of Lady Gaga and Adam Lambert.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

There’s no question that Gaga — and Glambert too — stand firmly on Madge’s muscled shoulders, but after pushing the envelope for so long it seems to have gotten pushed into something different. In this seen-it-all age of the meta, the dramatic, fearless, hyper-sexualized personas of Gaga and Glambert are less transgressive than reflective — two operatic baroque, characters less pushing the envelope than wearing it. Call it “Post-Sexy”: Incorporating and heightening the conventions of a sex-charged culture, so as to move beyond it.

Madonna delighted in shocking (think back to that Like A Prayer video) and revealing (think back to that coffetable Sex book). She loved forcing the
world to look at stuff. With Gaga and Glambert it’s less a reveal than an acknowledgment, of this era in which bootylicious women dance nakedly on boats and Miley pole-dances and Kate Hudson’s dress is commonplace. It’s even there in their nicknames — Glambert and Gaga. They roll easily off the tongue, and for some reason they don’t sound at all goofy when you say them (like “blog” and “Twitter” always will. Or “Mediaite”).

Watching them, you almost forget that they have boatloads of talent. Glambert can wail on a high note like nobody’s business, and the singing, dancing, piano-playing, songwriting Gaga is every kind of threat there is. There’s one kind of threat Gaga has that Lambert doesn’t though: Confidence. Lady Gaga has perfect confidence on stage — not bravado, just a serene comfort in who she is, what she is doing and why she is doing it. Lambert has confidence too, of course, but tonight showed it to be more the aggressive, defiant bravado of the over-confident. Lady Gaga and her dancers were flesh-toned, nearly naked, gyrating on the ground, but that wasn’t the focus, it was part of the whole rather than a distraction from it. That, alas, could not be said of Lambert, whose performance lacked the pure, art-for-the-sake-of-art theatricality of Gaga (or, really, his album cover). It felt a little like a starlet timing her crotch shot just so for the paprazzi. S&M-garbed dancers and that already-infamous head-grab (yes, that one) are not exactly subtle. Or, really, even that edgy; crude gestures are nothing new to rock music, which is part of the in-your-face legacy that Lambert has inherited. Like Gaga, he wore rather than pushed the envelope; he just didn’t wear it well.

Lambert’s talent and presence are equal to far more than that number gave him (or really, that fairly forgettable song) — there’s nothing brave or edgy about being in a suit when everyone else is in S&M gear (indeed, the frame at 2:41 made me think of this). The irony is that Lambert, who counts among his fans the gay, straight and bi-confused of all ilks, was far from his usual thrilling, sexy self, perhaps because the number had such a manufactured, mean edge. It was far, too, from the “unapologetic flamboyance and sexual swagger” of his thrilling Idol performances (that description, incidentally, is Out editor Aaron Hicklin’s, and judging from the lack of freshness and fun in that number, he may have a point).

Despite being given some lame material to work with, though, Lambert is still a star, capable of Gaga-esque heights as soon as he — and his team — trusts himself to do it, with some cheek and risk and authenticity and emotion (he reminded me a bit of Ted Neely in there — see 3:07 — and man, would I love to see him sing that one). “Bad Romance” is an awesome tune, but amid the flames and smashing glass and bare assed-ness of “Speechless” the real star was Gaga and that voice. God I would have loved to have seen something similar from Glambert. Next time.

Compare and contrast below:

By the way, I feel like there must be a connection between the blatant, explicit sexual nature of Gaga and Glambert — whose performances wear the permissive mores of our society like a fancy headdress or a harness — and the repressed, charged, yearnful yet chaste world of Twilight, which is the other thing burning up the Zeitgeist right now. I’m still in the throes of early infatuation for all three — Gaga, Glambert and all things Twilight — so I’m not quite there yet. But, after careful consideration, I will say this: TEAM EDWARD.

(Lady G photos via FYLadyGaga)

Adam Lambert used an interview with Entertainment Weekly to respond to allegations made earlier in the week by Out magazine editor Aaron Hicklin that Lambert didn’t want to be seen as “too gay” in the magazine devoted to being, well, openly gay.

Lambert told EW’s Whitney Pastorek that “I didn’t want to jump onto a gay magazine as my first thing, because I feel like that’s putting myself in a box and limiting myself. It was my desire to stay away from talking about certain political and civil rights issues because I’m not a politician. I’m an entertainer.” He also said he wasn’t terribly political and that Hicklin was trying to force an agenda on him that he didn’t want.

The battle between Lambert and Hicklin began earlier in the week when Hicklin said Lambert’s people were afraid Adam would appear “too gay” on the cover of Out magazine in its Out 100 annual listing and only acquiesced when Cindy Lauper was tossed into the picture. In a testy open letter, Hicklin says they tried to get Lambert during American Idol and he seems to resent that Lambert’s people thought a feature in the straight-but-curious rival Details was a better approach than on the cover of a magazine called, well, Out.

Someone has to be first, and we’re all counting on you not to mess this up. You have to find your own path and then others can follow. We just hope it’s a path that’s honest and true and that you choose to surround yourself with people who celebrate your individuality. The irony is that right now it would be easier to get Kris Allen to do a solo cover shoot for us. But only because he’s straight.

There’s no doubt that Lambert’s rise from Idoler to gay rock star is an important milestone for the entertainment—and gay—world, and one senses he gets that from his interviews with Out. But writer Shana Naomi Krochmal says that in all her time doing celebrity journalism, she’s never been met with the “you know, gay-gay” concern about how an interview was going to be done. She also isn’t apologetic for Hicklin’s outrage, explaining “[w]e’re witnessing a changing of the guard, and it’s bound to overlap a bit in the middle, creating these strange moments where we work with both proudly out stars and their reluctant handlers, sometimes at odd with each other even when they have the same ultimate goals.”

Adam went on the defensive, tweeting “Dear Aaron, it’s def not that deep. Chill! Guess ya gotta get attention for the magazine. U too are at the mercy of the marketing machine” and“Until we have a meaningful conversation, perhaps you should refrain from projecting your publications’ agenda onto my career.”

It’s easy to think that Hicklin’s being a little dramatic over this, but he also has a point. Lambert is a significant cultural figure in 2009, yet the glass closet doors of his life have been frustrating to watch, on several counts. Lambert decided to have his “Yep, I’m Gay” moment in Rolling Stone, not in the LGBT press. He did Details before he did Out or the Advocate. In some ways, it seems like his sexuality is still being carefully stage-managed by his handlers, whether they work for Fox or not.

But celebrity journalists were amazingly coy in handling Lambert, even during the American Idol run. No one seemed to want to ask him directly whether he was gay or not. It was the question on everyone’s mind and he was free not to answer, yet the question never got asked. Maybe he was being so heavily handled that no one dare ask the million dollar question. Or maybe the press was just afraid to “go there,” treating the superstar-in-waiting like he’s a Congressman from Nebraska who shouldn’t be questioned about his personal life.

You see that sentiment in Michael Slezak’s take on the controversy in EW’s PopWatch blog. Slezak accuses Hicklin of whining and advancing the “notion that because Adam is gay, and because he’s a celebrity, he therefore carries some kind of responsibility to advance the social agenda of the LGBT community. Reminder: He’s a singer, not a politician. And the simple fact of his being open about his sexual orientation is, in and of itself, a highly charged political act in these very volatile times.”

Well, EW and Out have different purposes, although probably a lot over subscriber overlap. Out’s mission is to promote the LGBT community and culture, while EW’s is to cover entertainment. They are going to exploit the Lambert phenomenon in different ways. In the middle, it seems, is Lambert whose comments to EW sound like what you’d expect from a 27-year old guy whose being forced into the limelight while wrestling with being openly gay.

Or, as Michelle Collins puts it at Best Week Ever:

This album cover is the FANCIEST THING WE HAVE EVER WITNESSED. Unicorns may not exist, but gay ones certainly do, and this album cover is more of a warning to that endangered species: Step your game up, you cashmere soft, ivory horned, glittery hooved motherf**kers. Cause Lambert’s through f*ckin’ around, y’all. Thank you, you beautiful Lambert, you. You have not let us down.

I KNOW! I love me some Glambert! This kid is my new favorite superstar — and extra points for getting more people to talk about his album cover than usually talk about an album. Did he know exactly what he was doing? Oh, yes. From EW:

“Thank you to those who appreciate and understand that the album cover is deliberately campy. It’s an homage to the past. It IS ridiculous,” he wrote this morning. “For those that don’t get it: oh well… Glad to have gotten your attention,” he continued. “Androgyny. Rock n Roll.”

Also from EW, which clearly CAN’T GET ENOUGH ADAM LAMBERT, a separate post from Michael Slezak:

Is America ready for this particular jelly? Some of my EW colleagues aren’t terribly optimistic, but might I remind them, we’re dishing a dude who sailed through Grand Ole Opry week with a hyper-sexual, sitar-infused take on “Ring of Fire.”

Slezak then goes all Kremlinological on it and tries to divine the hidden meaning within the cover’s dreamy depths (hints of Madonna, Prince and MJ; suggestions of nudity; Glambert may be an alien from an extremely hot, flamboyant planet). You really cannot stop looking at his eyes. Nor would you want to:

Adam Lambert Has a Message: “Step Up Your Game, Fancy Unicorns” [BWE]
Adam Lambert’s outre-space ‘For Your Entertainment’ cover: What do you think? [EW]
Adam Lambert confirms album cover ‘deliberately campy’ [EW]

p.s. Who do you like better, Glambert or Clay Aiken? Duh. Vote here.