»» Columnists

Reflections on Gays in the Media: What We Can Learn From Charles Perez

by Kevin Gotkin | 11:43 am, August 21st, 2009

» 13 comments

Kevin Gotkin In a recent interview with Advocate.com, gay ex-TV anchor Charles Perez described his former boss Bill Pohovey (another openly gay man) thusly: “I think he’s a company man. I think if you had to label Bill a gay man or a company man, you would pick company man.” Without knowing anything about Charles Perez or why he’s been in the headlines lately, you might, like I did, find this quote a little troublesome. It creates a rigid dichotomy between being one type of person and being a gay man, as if the two are mutually exclusive. “If you had to label,” Perez says as if it might be a forced decision, but one that nonetheless is nothing out of the ordinary.

Subtly, I think this response naturalizes an either-or mentality about being gay while having a career (especially one in the media). It’s a type of mentality that, if you look hard enough, might make the closet a really comfortable place to stay. Oddly enough, this quote hits at the heart of the bigger issue surrounding Perez: it highlights the all too obvious, but all too ignored fact that the faces and personalities we see on our TV screens might be a good measure of what we will and will not tolerate on a larger scale.

Of course I don’t mean to say that Charles Perez is maliciously propagating anti-gay sentiments. Charles Perez was a local Miami television anchor that was recently fired after filing a discrimination complaint against his station. Before anchoring the weekend evening news on WPLG, Perez had a long career history working at local television stations and eventually anchoring his own talk show. Not surprisingly, the reasons for his firing are not clear. Perez says he was gradually taken out of promotional spots for his show at a time when his personal life was becoming increasingly visible. He blames his firing on his filing of the complaint and ultimately on discrimination. The station strongly denies any kind of discrimination and says Perez was spreading “misstatements and untruths.” Whether Perez is trying to cash in on his sexuality or the station is using excuses to cover up actual discrimination is unclear and the evidence doesn’t come down on one side or the other.

As is the case with these kinds of stories, some have used it as a rallying cry and some have denounced it as disgraceful – and all within the comments section of any gay blog that covered the story. But even I have to admit that I’m not completely sure where I stand. Still, I think this is an important event because it lets us reflect on where gay people and media are with respect to each other.

I have never been one to settle with the “well, that’s the way it is” argument. But sadly, I do think that America’s hearts and minds are reflected in the faces we see on our television screens. Yet the delicate push and pull between depicting the ideal and depicting and actual diversity in the media takes no exception with the gay professionals we see. Many will say gays will be more accepted in the media when we are more accepted in the home. Others will say we must put gay people in front of the American public if we ever want to make change. Perhaps it’s the joy of living in a country that draws its national narrative from the immigration of so many different types of people that makes this debate so much pricklier.

I don’t think the most important thing we can learn from Charles Perez is that trying to break the glass closet still kills a gay person’s career or that professionals might be using their sexuality to cry gay wolf. While these lessons give rise to important discussions, the most important thing we learn from Charles Perez is about the delicate and sometimes dangerous relationship between gays and the media.

My mind is immediately drawn to the way people react to Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow’s reporting – two great thinkers who are respected and well-liked within the media, but constantly used as the butt of everyone else’s jokes. I sometimes feel that when America wants to talk about something either of them said, it has a hidden urge to make an immature joke about sex and giggle softly – and it’s something more than just the overly-sensitive can recognize. Consider, for example, this Huffington Post piece (especially the title) or this New York Times Magazine piece about Maddow’s sexuality despite the fact that she never purported to love her job because she wanted to be a sex icon. This might be another example of our inability to think about sexuality as divorced from sex.

The discussion about sexual orientations in the media might be very similar to the discussion about race in the media or women in the media or redheads in the media or pizza-lovers in the media. I think our scrutiny of all media personalities is also fueled by the distrust people have for their news. I think that many people find it easier to be cynical than to dig in and think about a story. I also think it’s easier for people to pick apart their news anchor than it is for them to pick apart an important headline. And although there is a give and take, I think the more serious we become about our news, the more we might realize that the best news gathering has little to do with what type of person the anchor is attracted to. In the end, maybe the relationship between the media and anything about personal lives is that there is none at all.

anderson cooper, Charles Perez, Gays, Glass Closet, Kevin Gotkin, Rachel Maddow, WPLG-10

Eliza

Interesting read. The jokes that are made about Maddow and Cooper are frustrating. Cooper can’t even interview an attractive male without a half dozen innuendo-filled posts hitting the Internet a day later. Check out this Gawker post after his Michael Phelps interview:

http://gawker.com/5100167/michael-phelps-sleeps-with-anderson-cooper
jaysays

That certainly brings up a lot of interesting questions. The first thing to cross my mind were IAT’s (Implicit Association Tests) and some of the psychology developed from them. Implicit Association Tests would seemingly show racism or other bias that the person may not even be aware of; however, it’s argued that these tests just show that we tend to bond or sympathize more with the faces (races/color/creed/sexual orientation/etc.) that we are familiar with – Asians brought up in Caucasian households might bond more with Caucasians than with fellow Asians, etc… etc…

I’ve been debating that relationship with empathy toward gays – particularly, as we are covert minorities in many cases. We aren’t necessarily seen as “gay” until we come out, publicly or not. The shift happens at that point and you hit it right on, people don’t disconnect sexual orientation from sex. The vision is immediate when discussing sexual orientation and the famous “Who’s the girl?” question is not about washing the dishes!

Whether Perez is crying wolf or not we will never know. I would hope that in this politically sensitive climate, we would be very careful about saying someone is discriminating against us unless it’s really happening – but I also hope people will start believing in LGBT equality… so I’m an optimist. I do give him the benefit of the doubt, however. I think we all should – we’ve all faced some form of discrimination in our lives and to assume it’s unlikely or doesn’t happen is very dangerous.
libra blue

@Kevin, I think one of the problems is that some people still believe that being gay is a choice and immoral according to their “religion,” something I disagree with adamantly.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that just because someone disagrees with a minority stand on an issue does not mean he/she is discriminating against them. I don’t know whether Perez is “crying wolf” or not, but he isn’t the first member of a “minority” to do it in order to get what he/she wants. I also think that many people believe that “minority” journalists are not objective and have an agenda in regards to racial or gay rights.

Although there is some evidence to suggest it, to my knowledge Anderson has never admitted to being gay. No matter how unfair it seems, the fact that he keeps his “preference” secret only adds to people’s interest and frankly he uses that ambiguity to his advantage. IMO, I think that Anderson likes to throw out little comments or clues to incite people to speculate about his personal life. You don’t think that “tea bagging” comment was an accident do you? Just like those photos of him on TMZ with the baby, he knew people would be talking about it and that he would get publicity from it, and as everyone knows, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Although I respect his right to privacy, I can’t say that I have much sympathy for his self-imposed position.

BTW, many of the jokes made about Anderson’s supposed gayness are made by gay blogs who are trying to force him out of the closet. Wouldn’t it be surprising if Anderson is not gay and all this “controversy” over his sexuality was merely a brilliant publicity stunt? I wonder if the gay community could handle that?
nam

I wish people who accused gays of being non-objective would appreciate that straight news people are bringing a personal perspective to their work as journalists as well, and the personal religious background or homophobia of straight journalists may even make them entirely non-objective about gay issues.

I also have noticed myself the thing the article points out about people obsessing about Anderson and Rachel’s sexuality and making jokes about it all the time. A depressing number of Rachel’s detractors on the right that you see online just insult her masculine looks or her sexuality instead of really addressing her facts or arguments.

Libra, I do think Anderson (like Rosie Odonnell back when she was closeted and hosting a TV show) sometimes throws little inside jokes or noticeably gay references that gay viewers pick up. I don’t consider the tea bagging thing one of them, though, since that is not an activity known or practiced only in the gay community and there had already been straight guys on MSNBC making loads of tea bagging jokes. He was just quietly walking in a park with the baby, not taking it to the Ivy, so it didn’t look like a publicity grab to me. I don’t think he’s accustomed to having to deal with paparazzi like there is in LA since in New York with he can go all over town with his boyfriends without problems from paparazzi like other gay celebrities of his level.
libra blue

@nam, I agree with your point that straight journalists are not always objective, but although I have seen many straight journalists disagree on a variety of issues, I rarely see a black, Hispanic, or gay journalist criticize or question a minority or gay issue no matter how unreasonable or outrageous it may be. Any of them that dare to do so are routinely criticized and insulted.

I don’t know anything about Maddow because I do not watch her, but Anderson is usually criticized for his pro Obama/liberal stand on all issues and not about his sexual ambiguity or suspected “gayness.”

I am not certain that I believe Anderson is gay, but I don’t think that his gay “teases” are solely intended for his gay audience nor do I think that they go unnoticed by the straight community. I have to disagree with you on the “tea bagging” comment. Although it is an “activity” practiced by the heterosexual community, Anderson said, ” It is hard to talk when you are tea bagging,” not, “I think it is hard to talk when you are tea bagging,” giving people the impression that he was speaking from first hand experience as a receiver, not just as a “giver.”

Funny thing about those photos of him and the baby, as far as I know TMZ was the first one to post one of the 25 photos on Final Pixx’s proof sheet and TMZ is owned by Time Warner the parent company of CNN. Although Final Pixx was confident enough with their info to label the photos, ” Anderson Cooper with his baby son and boyfriend,” TMZ chose to simply title their post “Oh Daddy!” Another media tease?

Anderson lived in LA during “The Mole” and he grew up as one of the Vanderbilts, who we all know were masters at using the media to promote themselves, so I think he is pretty paparazzi savvy.

Like I said, he is entitled to keep his personal life private, but although he insists that he wants to keep it secretive, I think he also uses the interest in it to further his career.
Anne

I respectfully disagree, Librablue. Anderson gets plenty of commentary on his being gay, even when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. And from conservatives and from liberals, who make the ‘funny’ remarks mentioned in the article. It’s incredibly irritating.

I think the gay rumors also lead people to believe he’s liberal-minded and start looking at him with that view, looking for things he says that support this. The criticism I’ve read about him being pro-Obama/too liberal have come from right wing people, but I’ve also read left-wing comments that he was clearly anti-Obama/not liberal enough/conservative. Seems like he can’t win. I’ve actually generally found him to be pretty balanced myself.

I don’t think the tea-bagging quip implied that either. If you’re aware of what the term means, it seems like pretty logical deductive reasoning.

If you’re implying that Anderson is steering gossip through Time Warner to TMZ, I really don’t think that’s true. (Sorry if that’s not what you meant.) I doubt that’s how he spends his time. TMZ are not the ones that took the photo’s , it’s been on multiple other blogs, it was going to end up on there anyway, because people are interested in him. When a TMZ reporter did track him down once, he didn’t talk to him and drove away. He might be aware of the paparazzi in LA, but he can hardly lock himself in his room all day, even for privacy.

A great article, Kevin.
http://www.twitter.com/kgotkin Kevin Gotkin

Thanks for the comments!

Anne, I think you bring up a great point about people associating Anderson with one bias or another because we all subconsciously agree that Anderson is gay. The liberal/conservative bias we assume is interesting because it’s another example of how poor of a job we do of thinking of sexuality as just one another part of a person’s being. I often repeat that a person’s orientation shouldn’t change our minds anymore than looking at someone’s eye color, but reading your comment made me realize I had totally assumed Anderson was liberal in his private life (I think on screen he’s quite objective). While the Log Cabin guys/gals have some problems of their own in my point of view, you’ve pointed out that even I made a connection that when someone if gay, they must always be liberal. But sexuality should be divorced from all other parts of a person’s character. Like I argue in my piece about sexuality and news gathering, being gay shouldn’t in some way warp another aspect of someone.

Thanks for making me think!
libra blue

@Anne, Anderson is not the only “celebrity” who is trashed in the media, it is a part of being a public figure. I don’t doubt there have been some offensive remarks in the media about Anderson’s ambiguous sexuality that have nothing to do with his work, but, aside from those stupid gossip blogs, I think that the majority of criticism that is waged against him has nothing to do with his sexual preference. It has more to do with the fact that he appears to give preferential treatment to any of his guests who support the Obama administration, the Democrats, and all liberal views and issues. His blog also blocks a lot of comments unfavorable to Obama and the Democrats. At least that is the problem that I have with him.

You really believe that Anderson is “balanced?” Then how do you account for things like the “tea bagging” comment and the ridiculous excuse for it he tried to give at the Daniel Pearl Memorial lecture? Do you think that was an appropriate comment for a respectable journalist to make? What was his purpose in making it? Has he ever made that type of offensive comment about the Obama supporters? They have certainly deserved it on a number of occasions. I would have expected that type of trashy remark from someone like Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann, but I expected Anderson to be above that type of rubbish, but apparently I was wrong. I should have known better since he is “friendly” with scumbag Kathy “lipstick on a pig” Griffin.

I am an independent who supports both gay rights and the right to choose. I was against the war in Iraq and I detested the Bush administration. Just because someone criticizes Anderson doesn’t make him or her a right winger.

As for the photo, in one of my earlier comments on the “Midnight Booty Call” post I said that Final Pixx took the photos and not TMZ. I have only seen these photos on two or three blogs and one of them banned their readers from commenting on them. I did not post it on my blog. Actually, I don’t know why TMZ even covers Anderson because all they talk about is his looks so they are obviously just another arm of the Anderson publicity machine. I still think that Anderson loves publicity and will go to any lengths to get it, especially if it will help his career.

I have followed Anderson’s career for many years and believe it or not I don’t hate him, but the problem with most of Anderson’s “loyal viewers” is that they think he is perfect and can do no wrong and if you disagree or say something negative about him you must be against him. I don’t care if someone is gay, straight, black, white, brown or none of the above. No one is perfect, everyone has their flaws, and their prejudices, even Anderson.
libra blue

@Kevin, I agree with what you are saying, but we jump to conclusions about people everyday based on looks. This is why stereotypes are so dangerous. If someone is black we assume they are liberal or if someone is elderly we assume they are conservative. I think it is important to see each other as individuals first and foremost. This country always claims that it celebrates the individual, but unfortunately, we tend to criticize people who do not physically fit into a preconceived notion of where they should be. If a black is a Republican he or she must be an “uncle tom” and if an elderly person supports a Democrat he or she must be senile.

I think the problem with sexuality is that, thanks to Madison Avenue, we put too much emphasis on it when it is, like you said, ” just one part of a person’s being.” IMO, there is so much more to an individual than that.
Anne

I didn’t say he was the only “celebrity” trashed in the media, and I’m sure there is also criticism of his work, but it’s not just gossip blogs. The link above is even from the huffington post, and I’ve read plenty of similar jokes and innuendo’s, blatant and not blatant but just as an aside in an article about something else about him, I find it very annoying. (And when you look at right wing political sites that DO have a problem with homosexuality, it is never not mentioned.)

Yes, I do believe he is generally, as I said, balanced. I follow Anderson as well, and while he gets annoyed at attempts to avoid a question and if guests are too agressive, I don’t find him to favor the Obama administration and have even found him too critical at times. I don’t think he goes over the comments of his blog, but whoever does has a serious authority kink. They’ve also blocked my attempts to join in, and most of the people I’ve talked about this with have also had problems getting through.

As for the tea-bagging comment, appropriate and balanced are two different things. The tax-protesters are bipartisan, as they keep telling us. As for appropriate, I found the response to Andersons quip be a complete overreaction and kind of sadly humorless. The protesters started using the tea-bagging term themselves, on signs “tea-bag the white house” etc. Then after they found out the actual meaning, they stopped and no-one could mention it or it was OMGScandalous! But, come on, no matter what your cause is, that has nothing to do with the name, anyone who accidentally names their group after a sexual innuendo and not expects it to be pointed out or thought to be amusing is just a bit delusional. It IS funny, they should have just just admitted it, made a self-deprecating joke, made their point, and leave it at that. What Anderson said was an offhand remark, it shouldn’t have been made out to be such a big deal, and after he even apologized for it, people should just accept his apology and let it go, or it comes of as petty.

Good for you! :) But you do find him to be too left-leaning on many issues, while I pointed out others find him to be too right-leaning.

I’m sorry, I really just don’t believe Anderson heads a publicity machine about himself. And not just TMZ but a lot of gossip blogs run stories on Anderson. I don’t know if it’s because they find him attractive or not, but they do. D-listed, Gawker, Ontd, Socialite life, OMG blog and lots of others also cover him, and they don’t belong to a CNN parent company nor are they focused on news media gossip only.

You do seem pretty negative about him, I don’t at all think he’s perfect, and I share your annoyance at the mindless no-criticism-ever kind of fan, but I don’t think he’s as bad as you say either.

It’s fun discussing this with you. :)

@kevin Aw, thanks. That made my day.
Anne

Re-reading that, the “Good for you! :)” comes of as kind of sarcastic. It was meant nicely, I just wanted to add.
libra blue

@Anne, I am really surprised that Huffpo posted something insulting about Anderson, I thought they were in love with him! I don’t often read the nasty blogs on either side. They are a waste of my time, I can predict what they are going to say.

I respect your opinion, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the “tea bagging” comment. Maybe if Anderson had said it under different circumstances it may have gone over as funny, but Gergen was trying to discuss it seriously, and no matter what your leanings, it is a serious matter, but Anderson just came off as being insulting.

Like I said I don’t dislike Anderson and sometimes I even like him a lot, especially when he does stories about animal issues. My negativity about him has developed over a long period of time, but I like the challenge. I always get viciously attacked by his fan girls when I criticize him, no matter how much evidence I provide to support my opinion, but I like that. If they started agreeing with me then I would worry.

As for the 360 blog, especially the live blog, my friends (in other states) and I have tested it on many occasions. If you try and post a negative comment about the Democrats, especially Obama, or Anderson, you get blocked most of the time, but if you say something positive about the Democrats or Anderson or if you say something negative about Bush (which I have no problem doing) it goes right in. Even on those rare occasions when a negative Obama comment does get through it is later deleted from the blog. Funny thing is, I rarely have that problem on Larry King’s blog. The AC360 blog would be a lot more interesting if they would include challenging opinions rather than the same old “fan girl” crap they post ad nauseam over there.

I also have to disagree with you on the publicity issue. It may have been true in the past, but Anderson’s head has gotten so large that I often wonder how he gets it through the front door of the CNN building! Although he says he identifies with the Cooper side of his DNA, he has proved himself to be too much of a Vanderbilt not to have a huge publicity machine. Alva, Alice, and Grace would have been proud!

I always enjoy trashing Anderson whenever I get the chance! :) However, I think you might be surprised at what I post on my blog. I enjoyed discussing this with you as well, hope to see you around again!
ftlaudcarl

As a South Florida resident and an ardent supporter of Charles Perez I feel that I must clarify some history that was not included in this article, probably not by any fault of the author, but because it may not have been included in the info that he was given…

Charles Perez started out at WPLG Local 10 as a weekend anchor. When the longtime weeknight anchor, Dwight Lauderdale retired Charles was promoted to weeknight anchor. The station was constantly airing commercials about what a professional, great reporter and wonderful, caring human being Charles was. Coincidentally (not!), when Charles’ sexual orientation and the personal problems he was having with his ex became public he was phased out of weeknights and eventually demoted back to weekend anchor. When he challenged that demotion and eventually filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation he was fired.

When I called the station a couple of times to find out what had happened after not seeing Charles at the start of the second week after his secret demotion I was lied to and given evasive answers, but still never told the truth, that he had been demoted. I had to find that out on my own. WPLG Local 10 is a sleazy organization owned by the same people that tried to buy the local NBC station and gut it of all of it’s local programming, including news, to lessen it’s competition. Fortunately for all of South Florida the sale fell through due to financing and possible legal issues.

Charles Perez is a sincere, warm and professional newscaster and was the ONLY reason I watched WPLG Local 10 news. He is not “crying gay wolf”. He was treated unfairly and has had the courage to stand up for equal rights, even at the cost of his career, unlike most others who find their closets a very comfortable place. If more of us would come out and show our strength instead of hiding and denying this country would not be the backwards, homophobic place that it is and I would not have to be writing comments like this.