Initially, I didn't really care. A former board member of GLAAD had dissed the organization, and I just didn't feel it was as newsworthy as everything else going on.
That was then.
Now I'm starting to feel like we've (well, Mike Signorile et. al.) stumbled on something, and it isn't good.
GLAAD's reaction to the board member was fast and furious, including an open letter from the leadership of the current board. That, and GLAAD's immediately damage control outreach to the blogs, and lgbt list-serves, only made things more suspicious. Why such a frantic reaction to a single board member who left years ago? Then there were the FCC letter(s). It seems that GLAAD wrote some letters to the FCC opposing Net Neutrality, except it didn't. GLAAD then said it never wrote the letters, then said it was an administrative error (whatever that is). At the same time we find out that GLAAD is weighing in on AT&T's merger with T-Mobile, when GLAAD has accepted money from AT&T and has an AT&T rep on its board of directors. Oh, and AT&t is opposed to Net Neutrality.
And finally, there's the Mike Signorile interview that didn't happen. GLAAD President Jarret Barrios had agreed to go on Mike Signorile's radio show to discuss all of this, then refused to go on unless a board member, who is also a PR flak, goes on with him. Signorile said no, he didn't want a PR flak, he wanted the President of GLAAD. So GLAAD said no. Again, weird move if there's no substance to any of these stories.
I don't know what to conclude. But it certainly feels like there's a story here. If there isn't, then Jarret should go on Mike's show, alone, and clear things up.
