As a seasoned advocate for LGBTQ rights, I’ve witnessed the landscape of equality evolve over the years. The recent Times story sparked a heated debate, and while I understand the concerns of some industry supporters and donors, I firmly believe that medical care, including trans care, should be a private matter between a doctor and their patient. My encounter with the publication was indeed surprising, but it underscored the urgency for organizations like GLAAD to continue growing our influence and impact.
This past summer was wetter on GLAAD, a 38-year-old advocacy group promoting fair representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in media, than it was colorful with rainbows.
The non-profit organization, well-known for monitoring the entertainment industry and advocating against offensive content or lack of opportunities for LGBTQ+ artists, has recently faced criticism due to a controversial situation. This controversy erupted following an exposé by The New York Times, which accused the CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, of extravagant spending with GLAAD funds. According to the report, these funds were used to renovate her home, buy a luxury vacation property, and travel in first class on trips such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. A philanthropy expert quoted in the article suggested that Ellis may have overstepped boundaries, while the piece hinted at potential violations of IRS rules.
An article published by The Times stirred a commotion within Hollywood’s circles, with many questioning Ellis’ continued affiliation with the group and their capacity to navigate the ensuing PR crisis. In discussions I had with industry insiders at studios and streaming platforms, there was a recurring sentiment: GLAAD performs valuable tasks, but Ellis’ excessive spending has overshadowed the organization’s purpose, necessitating a reining in of her actions.
Ellis touched down in Los Angeles last week for her first sit-down since the Times story hit. She argued the report lacked important “context” and did not sufficiently acknowledge GLAAD’s multi-year campaign against the publication over its coverage of trans issues related to gender-affirming medical care. A spokesperson for The New York Times said, “Our journalists pursued this story in the name of accountability and transparency for a nonprofit organization that is the recipient of millions in donations. The insinuation that this piece was reported for any other reason is both outrageous and betrays a lack of understanding of the role of independent journalism.”
The article from The Times sparked concerns about the extravagance in philanthropy associated with high-profile figures, particularly where it meets the entertainment industry (notably, GLAAD organizes numerous annual award ceremonies that also function as fundraisers and have recognized celebrities such as Beyoncé and Jay-Z). The renovation of Ellis’s home cost $18,000, which she explains was to convert her attic into a small studio equipped with a chandelier for regular live news interviews during the pandemic. The property in question is located in Provincetown, Massachusetts, a popular gay resort town frequented by donors. Issues related to GLAAD’s financial dealings, as highlighted in the article, were previously flagged in 2022 by the former CFO of GLAAD and were subsequently investigated last year by law firm Sheppard Mullin upon the instruction of the board of directors. Ellis has repaid GLAAD for the chandelier and, with the board’s agreement, GLAAD will no longer cover her expenses at Provincetown.
GLAAD’s leadership was accused in The New York Times of spending excessively. How do you respond?
Upon reflecting on what’s been written, there seems to be a significant lack of background information about GLAAD’s work and our necessity to be in influential positions. Given another chance, would I reassess this aspect? Absolutely. Did we examine how we presented ourselves and where we were present? Yes, definitely. However, will we continue the same approach? No, as we addressed that issue more than two years ago.
A representative from The Times has confirmed that they fully support their published report. This report featured comprehensive comments and context provided by GLAAD, as well as insights from external experts, whose perspectives are included in the article. We have no reservations about the accuracy of this reporting.
Has your fundraising been hurt by the story?
For August, our membership base expanded by a substantial 25%, a fact we’ve been sharing with our key corporate supporters who are now expressing interest in renewing their sponsorships. However, this growth hasn’t seemed to affect our current member count noticeably yet.
After the publication of the article, how did those initial hours and days unfold? Did you contact any potential donors during that time?
I consider myself lucky, as both the board and staff have been behind me. Many of our generous donors have shown their support by reaching out directly. Some asked tough questions about the recent events, but we were able to provide honest answers because we had thoroughly investigated the situation. To ensure transparency, we invited an independent party to examine our expenditures and conduct, offering recommendations that we swiftly implemented.
[The GLAAD board issued the following statement to EbMaster in support of Ellis: “We’ve learned and led through a lot over the past several months – as all growing organizations do. Our Board, Sarah Kate, her team and the countless supporters of GLAAD and the movement are acutely focused on advancing the mission of inclusion and representation in all its forms, in all facets of society. That work has never been more urgent, more consequential and, under Sarah Kate’s leadership, more intentional.”]
What kind of tough questions did you face?
Concerning Provincetown and our home media studio, these aspects weren’t explained with the rationale behind their choices – they weren’t for extravagant purposes, but to fulfill a business requirement. The arrangement of this information might have given an impression that we were living luxuriously, which is far from my personal character.
After the COVID-19 pandemic, GLAAD experienced remarkable growth, expanding our team by more than 60%. As CEO, I acknowledge that during this expansion, we lacked robust control mechanisms at the highest level of our organization. This oversight became apparent, and we recognized the need for immediate action. It was under my leadership that these changes were made.
People rarely discuss chandeliers in the context of homosexuality, much like how it was depicted in “The Phantom of the Opera.
Will you keep it?
Indeed, I’ve covered the expenses for that item. In our home, we transformed an attic area by adding a fresh coat of paint and installing some lighting. Compared to most CEOs, I make approximately 80 television appearances annually. The [Times article] overlooked the fact that we carefully evaluated the financial aspects of leasing a studio or refurbishing an unused section of our house for filming. Producers from CNN and MSNBC prefer authentic backdrops over artificial ones.
Did your industry backers and certain contributors believe that The Times article was a response to GLAAD’s critique of the newspaper’s handling of transgender issues? Is this something you concur with?
We’ve consistently maintained that healthcare, particularly medical care, is beyond questionable. I can’t imagine The Times discussing diabetes management, cancer treatment, or any other form of healthcare—except for transgender care, which we believe should be a private matter between a physician and their patient. Our initial encounter with them was quite astonishing in my years of experience. There was no flexibility; there was no willingness to engage in dialogue. Instead, it felt like an absolute closure.
How much more does GLAAD need to grow, and why?
As long as we haven’t achieved complete acceptance, we must persist in expanding our influence. I don’t measure it in terms of money or numbers; rather, the significant strides we’ve made over the past ten years have been about increasing our influence and access to key decision-making platforms. This has allowed us to forge connections, transitioning from an observer to a collaborator.
Why is that amount spent on something such as Davos considered reasonable, given that The Times reported that car services alone for the GLAAD team amounted to over $15,000?
2016, upon Trump’s election, I recognized that human rights might not be a priority at the World Economic Forum. Instead, it became crucial for us to engage where culture is shaped. This is why our attention turned towards that particular event. Additionally, we managed to arrange meetings with the Pope. The rationale behind GLAAD reaching out to the Pope is because he wields influence over 2 billion people. If we can sway him and if he gains a deeper understanding of our community, he will treat us more favorably. The past five years have been challenging for our community, and it’s evident that there has been a direct correlation between the anti-LGBTQ bills and the shifting attitudes among everyday Americans. These legislations have created a toxic environment … they’ve already set the stage for viewing our community as dangerous. This implies that governments feel compelled to intervene in managing us.
As a passionate cinephile engaged in numerous conversations within the entertainment sphere, I’ve often heard it emphasized that GLAAD’s pivotal contributions are primarily made off-camera, serving as consultants for both brands and content. However, I’m curious to know if this role also brings in financial returns?
Instead of saying it generates revenue, I would phrase it as follows: One aspect we streamlined early in our organization was offering advice and intellectual property without being reimbursed. This was problematic because a significant portion of our knowledge came from our marginalized community, yet they weren’t compensating us for it. Frankly, I found it astonishing that they were exploiting our experts in this manner. However, let me clarify: This practice never deterred us from voicing our opinions about them publicly.
What potential benefits or possibilities do you foresee for your business as it moves towards developing video games and collaborating with digital creators?
Gaming is the largest entertainment platform in the world. Our community over-indexes as gamers, so we launched a video game report last year to start holding that industry accountable for representation. And we’re working with CAA on influencers, arming them with our pressing issues and stats. The reason that I was brought in [10 years ago] was to modernize the organization based on the current media landscape. Culture used to come out of Hollywood and journalism like a one-way street. That’s evolved, and so has GLAAD.
What is the most pressing issue today for LGBTQ people?
If the pro-equality movement doesn’t prevail in this election, and Project 2025 becomes a reality, it means we will be prominently featured in their comprehensive plan. They intend to undermine our marriages, families, and the rights of transgender individuals. I foresee a future where our community could face criminalization within the U.S. This is not an exaggeration; the potential consequences are clearly outlined in their document.
Read More
- Smash or Pass: Analyzing the Hades Character Tier List Fun
- PENDLE PREDICTION. PENDLE cryptocurrency
- Sim Racing Setup Showcase: Community Reactions and Insights
- Why Destiny 2 Players Find the Pale Heart Lost Sectors Unenjoyable: A Deep Dive
- Hades Tier List: Fans Weigh In on the Best Characters and Their Unconventional Love Lives
- Why Final Fantasy Fans Crave the Return of Overworlds: A Dive into Nostalgia
- Understanding Movement Speed in Valorant: Knife vs. Abilities
- W PREDICTION. W cryptocurrency
- Dead by Daylight Houndmaster Mori, Power, & Perks
- Honkai: Star Rail’s Comeback: The Cactus Returns and Fans Rejoice
2024-10-30 23:17