My understanding is that the rationale was more along the lines that LGBT media isn't going to reach people who need to reconsider the way they see queer people -- that outfits like Logo and Here! are just preaching to the choir and not reaching enough people.

I agree with you up to a point, that is that quality LGBT-generated films, etc., that enhance the fight for gay equality and cross-cultural understanding should be recognized. But it's an absolutely demented decision that such works should compete in the same categories with those non-LGBT generated and something of an insult to GLAAD's founders and its mission.

It's the [G]ay & [L]esbian [A]lliance [A]GAINST [D]EFAMATION not the frigging Lady Bunny Awards. Nota Bene: their mission statement is, "GLAAD is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation."

Last I heard, here! and Logo were GAYYYYYYYYYY networks, who should already be "ensuring fair [and] accurate" material about us. And were I they, I would be afraid that none of the programs produced by said network would make the cut because so many are cliched crap. Would they seriously have put "Dante's Cove" up against "Brokeback Mountain"? Oh, I forgot, Reichen is a part of the cast now. Silly me.

The history of the GLAAD awards has been tarnished on occasion with their desperation in some years to find people to give awards to such as Stockard Channing who said in 2003, "I really don't know, frankly, why they're giving me this award." It followed her playing Judy Shepard in NBC's "The Matthew Shepard Story," but the award called her a "longtime friend and ally of the gay and lesbian community." Then there was that little noticed incident in 2004 when, after soliciting public votes for "Favorite OUT Image of the Year," the lesbian character on ABC's "All My Children" mysteriously won after having virtually no votes when the totals were last displayed online ["QAF" was winning hands down.]

Still, while it's understandable that GLAAD uses the award events to raise money, and honoring nongays like Ang Lee who have no personal motivation to portray us in a positive light [or portray us at all] is fitting and wise strategically, they should learn something from the veteran pros of award giving. There are very good reasons why the American-member-centric Oscars have categories/awards for Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film which take nothing from neither nominees nor winners.

Following their recent shallow "Network Responsibility Index," their praising "Chuck & Larry" and then denying they did, their continued pimping for Coors, and now taking one step forward and two steps back in regard to the awards, one can only remain more SAAD than GLAAD.

I think Scott Thompson put it best when he said that GLAAD totally skipping all gay media- not just here and Logo but the Adovacate and other forms of "gay media" - was a way of saying gays weren't mainstream, and basically an insult to the people they claimed to support.

Of course, that was actually the nicest thing he ever said about them - it gets so much worse. (He called them Uncle Toms, kissing up to the straights.) And frankly to a point I agree - the GLAAD awards have always been a joke. Maybe this is a step in the right direction, I don't know, but I still don't give a crap about GLAAD.

Do blogs constitute "media" yet though? If so, let me know where to pick up the prize. I've got my suit ready. *grins*

Oh, Bil! A suit? ... Please rent a tux! ...