On the outs

>> Gay journalists can't shake an age-old debate

COMMENTARY
by MATTHEW HAYS

Last weekend marked the third convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association-Canada (NLGJA). Titled Connections '99, the Toronto event drew together a broad range of journalists from most regions of the country, representing both the alternative and mainstream press.

Organizers did an excellent job, especially when one considers the steep uphill battle they face. In the U.S., the NLGJA is a well-heeled, high-profile organization; annual conventions down south regularly include such guest-speaker stars of the news as Leslie Stahl, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather (none of whom are gay). The group's Canuck offshoot, launched a mere four years ago, has attempted to raise issues surrounding gays in the media and to broaden its base by inspiring the establishment and growth of chapters outside of Ontario.

It's a tough task, for sure. Journalists--gay or straight--outside of Toronto tend to resent the horrifically Torontocentric state of Canadian media. Dave Brindle, the gay and HIV-positive Calgary-based Newsworld broadcaster, stated bluntly during a luncheon held in his honour that he thought a Calgary chapter of NLGJA would never take hold. A chapter needs 10 founding members--that means 10 out and outspoken gays in the media--and Brindle doubted whether Calgary could ever ante up (a pretty depressing statement).

As well, rifts could be felt between alternative and mainstream reporters. I (being an alternative type) was quite surprised by one afternoon panel I attended, simply by its very existence. Titled "Coming Out at Work," it posed the question, "Should you come out at work?" Not exactly what I would have thought of as a burning question for an organization bent on making our partially-visible minority much, much more visible. But there they were: members of the mainstream media discussing the difficulty of coming out on the job and the complexities of reporting on gay issues when you're gay yourself. It all seemed pretty damned passé.

The evening panel also focussed on the issue of visibility. "Media Outing and Inning" examined when gay journalists should name names and when they shouldn't. This seemed even more odd, as the whole thing felt like a rerun of the second NLGJA-Canada convention (held in 1997) panel about media treatment of gay public figures.

Again, gay and lesbian media types were bickering about how and when to come out, who to out and why, and when discussions of sexual orientation were in fact pertinent. An American guest delegate scolded a Toronto radio announcer for not being entirely out on the job. An editor of the Canadian gay glossy magazine Fab discussed his decision not to publish photos of one of Canada's top rock stars with his boyfriend (which would have effectively outed him). And there were plenty of Tom Cruise jokes. At the end of it all, there was surprisingly little consensus about when and who to out, and if or how out to be yourself.

Though progress has undeniably been made, what strikes me most at the end of the so-called gay '90s is the vast range of [dis]comfort zones queer journalists still must endure. There is no single, universal gay experience or--gag--lifestyle, and this diversity of perspective is no different for those in the media. The NLGJA convention pointed out that for gay journalists, as for all gays, the work experience can range from total openness to a suffocating closet.