1. Two hands.
2. Cake toppers.
3. The back of two men's heads.
Well - callooh callay - here is a lovely photo of an actual gay couple, just gaymarried, being intimate and showing their faces.
Awww!
So where's it from?
An American anti-gay marriage attack ad.
Maybe I'm mad, but I think all this tells us so much about how the media see gay men.
Meaning - we often don't see them.
Ashamed?
They should be.
Obvs, the photo was used without their permission, and they're suing - I wish them every success.
PS Thanks to Mike. x
Posts
Talking of which ... what about all those clubbers' faces in the gay mags? There used to be a small-print legal disclaimer tucked away in Boyz magazine saying that they did not mean to imply that that anyone in any of their photos was gay.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if it's still there. Gave up "reading" Boyz years ago.
Oh, I'd forgotten about that.
DeleteThe legal disclaimer "Just cause there is a picture of someone in here it does not mean they are a screaming gaylord."
I paraphrased slightly there.
Just checked my most recent copies of Gt and Attitude and both, after their long list of contributors (and very long lists of unpaid interns) have this little box that is literally too small to read, but basically they say...
"The mention or appearance of anyone is not to be taken as an indication of the sexual orientation of any such persons..."
PS It's 2012.
At least it beats the poetry :P
ReplyDeleteJoking aside, this is a good example of hegemony, isn't it?
Kinda.
DeleteI think it's more to do with how detached they are from ordinary people.
Every paper from, the Star to the Guardian to the Telegraph, now has out gay men on their editorial team - I'm astounded no-one pulls them internally up on daftness like this.
x
You complain that newspapers illustrate gay stories only with "photos of...
ReplyDelete1. Two hands.
2. Cake toppers.
3. The back of two men's heads."
Yes, I see what you mean. But when the story is a *general* story about gay marriage or whatever, a photo with faces is likely to mislead the reader into thinking the story is about that particular couple. My guess is that if they do a story about, say, the decline of straight marriage, they won't illustrate that with a faces photo of a particular couple, either.
Not sure I agree, Paul.
ReplyDeleteIf it was about, say, straight marriage statistics, they'd show a stock photo of a happy couple looking ecstatic while uncorking a bottle of Champagne while being showered with confetti.
I don't want to be patronising, but can you show me a photo printed in the media of a straight couple where we only see the back of their heads?
Same with stories about cannabis, actually. Usually illustrated with a joint in someone's mouth and the rest of their face cut off.
ReplyDeleteI can't offhand, but that doesn't mean such pictures aren't printed. I was merely thinking of the point you made from the possible point of view of a journalist - fifty years ago I was a journalist myself on a local newspaper, and I don't think we'd have illustrated a general story about marriage with a photo of a particular couple, unless they were 'iconic' in some way (e.g. like Princess Margaret and Anthony Armstrong-Jones; not that "iconic" was used like that then...)
ReplyDeleteProbably newspapers today can't lay hands on a 'stock' picture of of a gay couple facing the camera. It'll be a year or two before they have them and meanwhile are still using the back-of-heads-only pics they used for their shock-horror stories a few years ago. But I suppose that may prove your point...
Thanks, Paul.
ReplyDeleteI went to istockphoto.com.
Top 10 images for "gay marriage"; cake toppers, cake toppers, two lesbians, hands, cake toppers, cake toppers, hands, hands, hands, "Shattered Ring".
Actually... now looking for "marriage", there are many photos of feet, hands etc, but I stand by my argument.
x
There's a gay marriage story illustrated by a stock photo with two faces clearly seen running in the Daily Mail of all places... Perhaps the tide is turning? Or perhaps the picture researchers got bored?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214003/Lord-Carey-Gay-marriage-drastic-consequences-including-risk-polygamy.html
Aha - thanks M.
ReplyDeleteThe comments under that story are encouraging, too.
x
Note to self - stop saying nice things about the Daily Mail...