Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Alexandra Stachurová

Media Coverage of Life Before and After the Riots Bachelor ’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Jeffrey Alan Vanderziel, B.A.

2009

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Alexandra Stachurová

2

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Jeffrey Alan Vanderziel, B.A., for useful advice, patience, and kindness. I would also like to thank my mother and sister for everlasting support.

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………..... 3 Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………... 4 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………5 1 The 1940s…………………………………………………………………………….7 2 The 1950s…………………………………………………………………...... 15 3 The 1960s……………………………………………………………………………25 4 The 1970s……………………………………………………………………………37 5 The 1980s……………………………………………………………………………44 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...... 50 List of Works Cited……………………………………………………………………53

Introduction 4

As the title suggests, this B.A. thesis deals with the notions of gay people and their lives as presented by the media. The media create the way by which we perceive the world. We have our own opinions, but these are made of the information we get from the media. We may think differently of the things that are presented to us, but the basic notion of what is good and what is bad is often adopted from an official source.

This thesis deals with gay people as depicted in the press, literature, radio broadcasts, television, film industry, and theatre. Each of these media has its own special means to catch the attention of an individual and deal with a certain problem.

The press has been the most serious type of media. At the time of absence of television, the press was the only kind of media that supplied complete and independent information and shaped the opinions of its readers. Even in later years, the press remained the most serious medium and the medium used for political and medical acknowledgements.

Literature may not be a factual medium, but it can offer the readers a subjective and intimate look on completely unfamiliar spheres of life. Because it does not have to be objective and unemotional, it can gain the sympathy of the readers in a more personal way.

Television is the massest of the mass media. Daily watched by millions of people, it has the greatest influence on perception of every single event. What is not shown on television does not have to reach the audience at all. Television is the most important tool in manipulation and interaction with the general public.

Films and theatre present a reality adjusted to the official standpoints as well as the demands of their viewers. Their depiction of good and bad actions and characters exhorts the viewers to accept what is shown, and thus they shape the viewers’s perception of the surrounding world.

5

This thesis explores the depiction of gay people in the media during five decades of the twentieth century as well as the changes in such descriptions, and it deals with the differences in the ways of the coverage of various media. It also attempts to create a general view of the presence of gay people in the media in fifty years.

6

1. The 1940s

The 1930s and 1940s represented a great change for gay world. The 1920s and years of the Prohibition helped flourish gay cluture and its visibility to the non-gay world.

Many large cities like New York, London, or Berlin had an expanding gay community. 1

It did not take a long time and actions were taken to isolate gay people from public life. Hostility towards gay people became a part of official campaigns. First, drag balls were suppressed in the 1930. After that, Hollywood production had to adapt itself to the demands of censorship and avoid any indication of in films. Bars, pubs, restaurants and clubs were forbidden not only to employ gay workers, but serve gay customers as well. Police raided known meeting and cruising places like bars, clubs, pubs, parks, and public lavatories and arrested hundreds of . 2

The media (mainly the press) reacted to the change as well and quit describing gowns of drag ball queens and lavish parties held by famous open gays. They switched and began to report only on crimes committed by homosexuals (breaking the ). This added a new dimension to tabloids who started printing the most scandalous stories of indecent behaviour, often supported with “clever-naughty headlines” 3 like

“Fag Balls Exposed.” Even the respectable newspapers like the New York Times mentioned only law suits and medical conclusions without attempting to start a serious discussion of the subject (by the way, the New York Times used the word homosexual on its front page for the first time as early as in 1926). This hunt for sensation resulted in creating a profile of a typical gay man which lasted till the . The media created an image of a sexual predator, often seducing young boys, an effeminate man

1 Chauncey (1994: 1-12) 2 Chauncey (1994: 1-12) 3 Archer (1999: 111) 7 with a limp wrist and a mincing walk, rouged lips and a powedered face. General public adopted this notion unconditionally. 4

The media both offered reports on the sexual “perverts” and refused any sign of homosexuality outside the courtrooms and institutions. Anything that contained allusions to “abnormal” male behaviour was criticised hardly. This approach concerned mainly artistic spheres, as literature, theatre and film. When By Jupiter (authors

Rodgers, Hart) opened in 1942, the reception was largely positive. In spite of the success the Herald Tribune criticised the humour sprung from allusions to homosexuality and considered it to be indecent and needless. Typically, it also compared the jokes of homosexuality to the humour of pre-Nazi Germany. These trends would continue for the next thirty years. 5 As charles Kaiser in his book The Gay

Metropolis observes, “…any obvious gay reference on stage was quickly criticised by reviewers.” 6

However, if the signs of homosexuality were cleverly disguised, it was possible to make a film “replete with homosexual overtones.” 7 Alfred Hitchcocks’s 1948 thriller

Rope about two psychopaths who murder a friend of theirs just for fun had no problem getting to the cinemas because the censors did not find out it was about gay people. 8

The suppression of homosexuality in cultural level did not apply to performances organized for soldiers during the World War II. A very popular entertainment of the soldiers in their free time was the drag shows. Owing to the lack of women in the army, the roles were played by men. Army tolerated the apparent campness (Dwight David Eisenhower, then the supreme commander of Allied Forces in

Europe, supported the shows officially) and the press was thus allowed to write about

4 Archer (1999: 111), Chauncey (1994: 1-12), Kaiser (1997: 19) 5 Kaiser (1997: 16-25) 6 Kaiser (1997: 16) 7 Kaiser (1997: 59) 8 Kaiser (1997: 59) 8 them in a positive way. The Herald Tribune (the same sheet that criticised gay jokes in

Broadway’s musical By Jupiter – see above) found nothing wrong with men playing women and did not even miss women’s absence. Life produced an article called “Men in

Khaki Take Over the Women” and praised the performance of the soldiers. 9

The first serious discussion about homosexuality in American newspapers arised from a case of murder that took place in Beekman Hill, Manhattan, in 1943. Canadian soldier Wayne Thomas Lonergan murdered his estranged wife Patricia Lonergan in her house. Tabloids vied with one another in describing the juiciest details of “one of

Manhattan’s most celebrated homicides” 10 – Newsweek , the New York Post , the

Journal-American and even the New York Times reported about Mr. Lonergan’s good looks, his imtimate relationship with Patricia’s deceased father and circumstances preceding the murder. Nevertheless, the description of the murder itself did not get in the reportages of the New York Times – the “unprintable details” 11 were omitted, although the readers avid for scandals could look them up in tabloids. 12

Lonergan’s soon became a front-page topic. As Kaiser aptly remarks, “a fiercely competitive press could no longer resist the temptation to discuss what had hitherto been unmentionable.” 13 The New York Times mentioned that

Lonergan himself labelled himself as either a homosexual or a bisexual. The Journal-

American printed an anonymous, but detailed article “Psychiatrists Give Views on

Lonergan. Refer to History in Discussion of Character” which made a connection with typical opinions (only repeating all the known – describing homosexuals with such words as “vice, damage, social cancer, monster, unnatural, moral leper,

9 Kaiser (1997: 37-38) 10 Kaiser (1997: 19) 11 Kaiser (1997: 21) 12 Kaiser (1997: 19-21) 13 Kaiser (1997: 22) 9 pervert, degenerate, evil, unscrupulous, contemptuous of decent people, and sinister” 14 ).

It depicted homosexuals as perverts (the ones who choose this) and sick people (the ones who cannot affect their desires). Time covered this topic shortly afterwards, giving the same arguments as the American-Journal .15

The Lonergan’s case and its coverage in the media certainly changed the image of homosexuals. After years when gay men were assumed to be effeminate artists or bohemians, clearly differentiated from “normal” men, Lonergan proved (and the media reported on it in detail) that even a masculine and handsome man, a soldier, who had sex with women as well, could be a homosexual. 16

Not only the general public, but also gay people who felt isolated were disoriented by the new pieces of information and interested in deeper understanding of the subject. There certainly were publications dealing with homosexuality (one of the first books available to general public dealing with homosexuality was The Intermediate

Sex by Edward Carpenter, published in 1908; unlike the other then contemporary publications it did not treat homosexuality as a medical or moral problem, but more likely as a “condition of humanity”), but these were not readily available. Finally, in

1948 two books were published that fulfilled the expectations. The year 1948 can be considered as a milestone in promoting sexual (and gay) liberation and convincing

American public that homosexuality was not an illness. 17

Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male by Alfred Charles Kinsey was a voluminous scientific treatise based on interviews with twelve thousand American men.

Its revolutionary approach resided in separating scientific and religious view to sexuality and being nonjudgmental. Kinsey’s conclusions in chapter “Homosexual

14 Kaiser (1997: 24) 15 Kaiser (1997: 21-25) 16 Archer (1999: 115-116) 17 Meeker (1998: 7) 10

Outlet” revealed that among others 37 per cent of American males had some homosexual experience in adulthood (after puberty) and 4 per cent of males were exclusively homosexual. That basically meant that sexual activity between two individuals of the same sex could not be rare and unnatural (one of the most important impact of the book was that gay people of the United States suddenly realized that homosexuality was not a problem of an individual, but a condition of a group). And, above all, Kinsey claimed that there was nothing like a heterosexual or homosexual.

There was only sexuality with all its wide-ranging aspects. 18

Even though Kinsey’s book elicited anger of psychiatrists who profited from

“curing” gay people, the media and (owing to them) general public were sympathetic.

The most conservative New York newspaper, the New York Times , published a respectful review of the book and pronounced an opinion that it would create an explosion and change in treating homosexual people, marking it one of the most importmant books of the century. In total, about five hundred articles (newspaper and magazine) were written about the report in two years. Kinsey’s report became a huge commercial success with more than 200,000 books sold. 19

The other book that changed the view of gays was Gore Vidal’s novel, The City and the Pillar – a story of a man who cannot forget his sexual experience with a childhood friend. Much like Kinsey’s report, Vidal’s novel was a matter-of-fact, nonjudgmental summary of a gay experience. Unfortunately for Vidal, the most prestigious New York newspaper, the New York Times , denounced the book disgustedly and other newspapers did not even have the courage to write its review. However, the media embargo failed to prevent the book from being a commercial success. 20

18 Kaiser (1997: 52-56), Archer (1999: 141-147) 19 Archer (1999: 139-141), Kaiser (1997: 56-58) 20 Kaiser (1997: 58-61) 11

When speaking about the media covering homosexuality, the media published by gays particularly for gay readers must be mentioned. One of the first circulars of such a kind was Shawger’s Illiterary Digest , first printed in 1943. For safety reasons, it was distributed only to people personally known to the author. For the same reason, there was no explicit reference to homosexuality. Individuals mentioned in the (often indecent) stories told in the Digest were disguised with “camp names” like “Bessie

Backstage” or “Nadia Nausea.” Thus the author “produced the appearance of heterosexual relations” 21 and wrote about gay sexual activities without reavealing them to be gay. Meeker concludes that this kind of publications originated from gay men’s fear of losing their friends in the war. These circulars were able to maintain the social networks and friendships that were restrained in the army. 22

Martin Meeker in his book Contacts Desired summarizes:

…the second-class status of homosexuals in the United States

was largely due to a few interlocking factors, which included the

misinformation (or lack of information) about homosexuals that

circulated through the media, the poorly informed or uninformed

notions about homosexuals held by experts and professionals

(like the police, psychiatrists, and the clergy), and, perhaps most

important, the difficulty homosexuals experienced when trying

to connect with one another and the sense of isolation that

resulted. 23

The lives of gay men in the 1940s were significantly stigmatized by the media.

The media coverage of the subject of homosexuality created a myth of a sexual predator and pervert whose actions menaced the orderly American citizens. However, even in the

21 Meeker (1998: 23) 22 Meeker (1998: 22-23) 23 Meeker (1998: 13) 12

1940 steps were taken to put homosexuality through a scientific research and liberate it from unsubstantiated speculations. The forthcoming 1950s would appear to continue both of these trends, but each by a different groups of people.

The 1940s in Great Britain

Before the World War II, almost every major city in Britain had a flourishing gay scene. The scenes contained communities formed by subcultures of gay men and women from different classes. The members of these communities were meeting in gay pubs and bars or holding private parties and dances. Gay pubs were raided the same way as their American counterparts. British gay people were also being arrested for indecent behaviour. There were the first attempts to cure homosexuality, the treatment involved electric shocks. 24

The World War II allowed gay men to have more homosexual experience that was, in contrast to e.g. “campy” behaviour, illegal and led to court martials. The number of men convicted of same-sex sexual activity increased almost sevenfold during the war. Much like their American colleagues, the British officers examined the influence of homosexuality upon a soldier. They found out that gay soldiers were less resistant to trauma or needed to dominate their male comrades-in-arms. Unlike the American soldiers, the British ones could take advantage of the frequent blackouts. 25

After the war, these men disappeared from the streets of London. Much like in the

United States, the British society turned to family life and prosperity.

The press focused only on the stereotypical images of gay men – effeminate, made up men, well known to the public, who seduced young boys and menaced the nation, wandering around or meeting in gay pubs. Theatre was highly criticised for using

24 Cook (2007: 148-167) 25 Cook (2007: 148-167) 13 effeminate male characters to entertain the theatre-goers (e.g. a 1933 play Green Bay

Tree ). During the war, the press reported on gay sex in the army and decreasing morale of the young royal guardsmen. 26

Conclusion

As we may observe, the media coverage of homosexuality in the USA and Great

Britain did not vary too much in the 1940s. The press presented completely the same image of a typical gay man – an effeminate sexual predator – and reported mainly on criminal acts of indecency committed by the “perverts.” Gay people were considered to be a threat to society in both countries. The allusions of homosexuality in works of art were criticised as well. Still, the US and UK media slightly differentiated in one point – their coverage of homosexuals in the army. While the Americans read more about prevention in admitting homosexuals to the army, the British learned about the decreasing morale inside their military.

26 Cook (2007: 148-167) 14

2. The 1950s

The 1950s were a decade of prosperity for the United States. Economy grew quickly and the suburban middle-class families were able to gain food, clothes, and housing more easily and cheaper than ever. Family and family values became a symbol of puritan society that did not dare to discuss sex and death (even after the war), disapproved of abortions and divorces, and promoted segregation and religion. 27

The 1950s were also stigmatised by a crusade against (putative) members of the

Communistic Party and its sympathisers. The Red Scare was induced in 1950 when

Senator Joseph McCarthy announced that he had a list of communists working in the

State Department. This event was followed by a decade of informing, charging without serious evidence and fearing. 28

A parallel situation began in 1950 affecting gay people. A rumour that Hitler, and

Stalin after him, had had a list of homosexuals in American government posts, served as a pretext for a witch-hunt and persecution of gay people. 3,750 “sexual deviants” and

“perverts” were disclosed in the U.S. government, labelled as unsuitable for working in the government, emotionally unstable, and morally weak. According to a report issued by the Senat Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments, homosexuals were considered as vulnerable to blackmail and not tough enough to resist and thus a security risk. In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower’s government listed “sexual perversion” as sufficient reason to dismiss a person from employment. Within a year, 640 suspected gay people were fired from federal jobs. At the Cold War, twice as many putative homosexuals than putative communists were discharged. 29

27 Kaiser (1997: 65-66) 28 Eisenbach (2006: 2-3), Kaiser (1997: 68-69) 29 Eisenbach (2006: 3-5), Kaiser (1997: 68-69, 78-80) 15

The official governmental standpoint influenced every sphere of public life. As

Steven Seidman in his book Beyond the Closet observes, “a national campaign against homosexuality grew to an almost feverish pitch in the 1950s.” 30 More than a half of the state governments passed laws that labelled homosexuality as a threat to society. The

American Psychiatric Association (in conformity with the government’s opinion) recognized homosexuality as an illness and classified it as a perversion (much like pedophilia, voyeurism, or sadism). Medical experts assumed that it was caused in childhood by an unbalanced relationship with parents (with whether a close mother or a missing father). For a gay person, there was only one possibility in terms of medical science – let oneself “cure” and convert to . Most gay people agreed with this attitude at that time. 31

Police participated in oppression of gays as well. Sexual activity between two individuals of the same sex was illicit and police made the account of it by entraping and harassing gay men. Plainclothes men cruised gay bars, public lavatories, bathhouses, parks, and streets. If a policeman was proposed by a gay man, the man was arrested for an indecent behaviour. Towards the end of the 1950s, approximately 1,000 men were arrested in . 32

The presence of gay people in a catering establishment itself could produce the closure of the business, because serving alcohol to homosexuals and even employing homosexuals was prohibited by law. Towards the end of the 1950, tens of bars lost its liquor licences or were closed for serving gay customers. This resulted in massive opening of gay bars run by the Mafia. However, these establishments were dangerous to life. Drinks were poured in dirty glasses (there was often no running water), which

30 Seidman (2002: 25) 31 Eisenbach (2006: 2), Kaiser (1997: 72) 32 Eisenbach (2006: 11-12), Kaiser (1997: 83) 16 conduced to transmitting illnesses, and often there was no fire escape. These bars also had to pay for protection to the police. 33

Running a gave the Mafia an opportunity to blackmail its customers.

However, blackmailing activities did not concern only gay bars. Groups of extortionists had a very successful method of acquiring money from their victims. A young man picked up an older man in a bar and went to the older man’s home or a hotel room with him under the pretence of sex. There he beat his victim up and took the money and a driving licence from him. After some time, fictitious policemen could come and want another money for not investigating the victim in a case of male prostitution (having a convincing evidence – his driving licence). The victims of such crimes never reported them to the police in the conviction that losing money was better than losing a reputation. 34

Through every inconvenience of the 1950s, not everybody was hostile to gay people. Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (and then Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female ) made a big difference in how some individuals from the heterosexual majority and, above all, the gays themselves began to perceive their lives.

In 1957, Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a psychologist, decided to analyse the behaviour of gay men. She compared the results of three standard personality test (incl. the Rorschach test) given to thirty gay men and thirty straight men. The groups were matched in age,

IQ, and education. The gay men were neither psychologically treated nor having an experience in prison. The results were then shown to another psychologists who should have identified the gay men, but the doctors did not succeed. Hooker proved that the psychological adjustment of gay and straight men did not differentiated, thus homosexuality could hardly be a mental illness. Although neglected in the 1950s,

33 Eisenbach (2006: 9-10), Kaiser (1997: 84) 34 Eisenbach (2006: 7-10), Kaiser (1997: 84) 17

Hooker’s research laid the foundations of the future opinion that homosexuality was innate. 35

The beginning of the came in 1951 in . Although the

United States were held by an anti-communist and anti-homosexual hysteria, a group of gay members of the Communistic Party founded the first gay rights movement in the

USA, the . The organization was based upon the Communistic Party and adopted its structure, hierarchy and secrecy. The aim of the organization was to convince heterosexual majority that homosexuals were in fact an oppressed minority, and thus deserved a legal protection and equal rights. Another aim was to convince the gay people that they should have celebrated their unique identity and help all the isolated gays connect to gay communities. Soon a view that gays should have integrated into mainstream society started predominating and the organization (meanwhile opening branches in other large American cities) split up. The new Mattachine Society created a visible presence of gay people in the largest metropolises in the United States – publicity was its main aim. 36

Much like in the 1940s, the public got a clearer picture of what it meant to be a homosexual from the media. In time of economic expansion along with the communist threat the American society took refuge in contracting monogamous heterosexual marriages, nurturing children and keeping traditional gender roles. Homosexuality was far removed from common life. Most Americans supposed that everybody was heterosexual, because scarcely anybody had a contact with openly gay people in the

1950s. The media was the only source for ordinary citizens to encounter a homosexual and it did not offer impartial judgements. 37

35 Eisenbach (2006: 228-229), Kaiser (1997: 123-124) 36 Eisenbach (2006: 19-22), Kaiser (1997: 122-123), Meeker (1998: 37-39) 37 Meeker (2002: 43-47), Seidman (2002: 27, 109) 18

In the 1950s, a majority of references to gay people in the press was connected to crime. The image of a homosexual did not change much since the 1940s. The press still offered the concept of sex-addicted perverts with mincing gait and insane criminals

(committing the most violent crimes) who were pursued by the police in public parks and streets and raided in the gay bars (e.g. in 1957 the magazine SIR published an article “What Makes Fairies Kill?”). The lingering prejudices were thus shaped more firmly than ever. This attitude was supported by the federal government whose accomplishments in the fight against “deviates” and traitors in government posts were often emphasised – the witch-hunt againts gay people was extensively covered in the press. 38

Not everybody promoted the official standpoint though. In 1950, the New York

Post ran a series of articles covering the subject of homosexuals in federal government.

Taking an example by Kinsey’s report, the newspaper tried to convince their readers that not only gay people were vulnerable to blackmail, but alcoholics, gamblers or promiscuous heterosexuals as well. It also pointed out that the United States started resembling George Orwell’s famous novel 1984 .39

Concerning the 1950s cinema, homosexuality had no chance to be pictured in a film. Every film needed an approval of the Hays Office, and the strict censorship prohibited even an open-mouth kissing or using “inappropriate” words (like fairy , nuts , or damn ). Many things (such as abortion) could be only suggested, and murders and kidnaps must have been rightly punished. Homosexuality (as a sex perversion) was forbidden without exception. However, in 1959 the Supreme Court started loosening the

38 Eisenbach (2006: 2-12), Kaiser (1997: 69-82), Meeker (2002: 52) 39 Kaiser (1997: 70-72) 19 laws that allowed the government to censor films, books, and magazines and label them as obscene. 40

During the 1950, television substituted cinema at the position of the most popular media. As television was much more prudish than film (and uneasy with any display of any sexuality), it mentioned gay people only in programmes where comedians made fun of the stereotypical image of homosexuals – effeminate men and predatory deviants. 41

Radio became the only form of media that not only did not suppress a discussion about homosexuality, but also gave gays a chance to speak for themselves publicly. In

1958 the Californian radio KPFA broadcasted a programme The Homosexual in Our

Society , the first radio programme dealing with homosexuality in the history. The moderator talked with the members of the Mattachine Society and a psychiatrist first, then the listeners could share their opinions. Ordinary citizens were for the first time in the position to learn something about the gay community and the problems they faced from a mass media. The Homosexual in Our Society was revolutionary by being sympathetic and allowing gay people to express themselves and mainly by being aired at all. 42

The real ground-breaking event of the 1950s was the publication of the book The

Homosexual in America by Donald Webster Cory in 1951. This was the first non-fiction book dealing with homosexuality being written by a gay man and criticising the anti- homosexual prejudices. Its heterosexual readers were given the opportunity to discover the gay world – its language, practices, and culture. Cory declined the treatment of homosexuality, criticised the media for showing homosexuals as perverts and criminals, and suggested that gay people should be taken as a minority and all the laws regulating sexual activity should be abolished. He also called for a better image of gay people in

40 Eisenbach (2006: 26), Kaiser (1997: 66-67) 41 Eisenbach (2006: 2), Kaiser (1997: 67) 42 Meeker (2002: 59-60) 20 the media and a creation of gays’s own media. The book was a big success being bought by gay as well as straight people (similarly to Kinsey’s report), but its greatest success resided in proving gay people that they were as good as anybody else. 43

Cory’s call for a gay press was not left unheard. The Mattachine Society established One , the first gay newspaper, in 1953. This paper was not much political, it rather pruduced ideas and discussions about homosexuality. Soon it was followed by the

Mattachine Review (1955) and the Ladder (1956, magazine by the , a organization). All these prints dealt with the prejudices against gay people and stereotypes and uncovered subjects in the “straight” media. The Mattachine Review demanded equal rights for any sexual “variant” and changes in sex laws. It included interviews with lawyers, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and even , and reviews of books about homosexuality. It also published letters by its readers from all the United States. It may be surprising that it contained some negative references to homosexuality. 44

The Mattachine Review , One , and the Ladder were important, because the society in the 1950s received information preferably from the media and the Mattachine Society was overlooked by them. If the Mattachine Society wanted to proclaim itself as a legal authority on homosexuality, it had to be considered so by the public. Then the media were needed to start a favourable discussion on homosexuality. When the “straight” media (like KPFA radio) and the Mattachine Society’s own press started speaking for homosexuals, the gay people became a part of the public and could take another steps to gain a legitimacy of gay rights. 45

43 Eisenbach (2006: 12-18), Kaiser (1997: 125-129), Meeker (2002: 47) 44 Eisenbach (2006: 20-25), Meeker (2002: 34-50) 45 Eisenbach (2006: 15-16, 25), Meeker (2002: 51-60) 21

The 1950s in Great Britain

The 1950s meant a beginning of debate, analysis, and media coverage of homosexuality in Britain. Several sociological studies of homosexuality were published.

The official standpoint toward the subject was not sympathetic. Gay people were seen as wreckers of social reconstruction and rejected as a threat to family values. The church called for resurrecting Christian morality. 46

In 1951, two British spies who happened to be gays defected to the USSR. This scandal induced wild reactions in British press – homosexuals were describes as security risks and probable traitors. But the classical depiction of gay people in the press remained unchanged – they were still the effeminate sexual predators who threatened the society. The reports on homosexuality became more sensational than in the 1940s. 47

Same-sex sexual activities were still forbidden. Concerning murder and assault cases, gay people were treated as perverts with no rights. If a homosexual was murdered, the murdurer was often acquitted because “perverts” deserved nothing else.

The number of indecency behaviour convicts increased in the 1950, but this condition cannot be considered as a witch-hunt comparable to the United States, because there was never an official crackdown against gay people.48

Surprisingly, British public did not accept the media opinions of homosexuality and, more surprisingly, was supported by the Church of England. Its statement of 1954 openly advocated the legalization of sex between the same-sex individuals, because its persecution led to blackmailing and committing suicides. Some newspapers refused to report on trials with gay men, because they caused too much misery. Gay men released

46 Cook (2007: 167) 47 Cook (2007: 168) 48 Cook (2007: 170-171) 22 from prison were given a public support, such as Sir John Gielgud got a standing ovation after returning on stage. 49

The Government assembled a committee whose task was to investigate the law regulating same-sex activities and prostitution. In 1957, the so-called was produced. It suggested that law should not regulate individual morality and thus homosexual sex should be decriminalized. The press reaction was mixed. Some newspapers called for protection of family values, some were deeply sympathetic. 50

Conclusion

The first half of the 1950s in the United States and Great Britain was almost alike. Gay people became a national threat and as such were treated. The press still reported on the criminal acts of indecency committed by gay men and offered its readers more and more scandalous stories. The problem of homosexuality even got into a political level when gay people became considered as security risks. However, the

British government never arranged political processes with homosexuals like the USA.

The dissimilar development of the media coverage of the gay issues are indicative of the media dependence on public view. The American citizens were scared of homosexuality and considered it an illness or crime. American media consequently offered reportages supporting these moods. By contrast, the British public was shocked by the distress that gay people were forced to bear and became highly sympathetic. The media started reflecting the views of the British society and became supportive in the question of gay rights.

49 Cook (2007: 171) 50 Cook (2007: 172-173) 23

24

3. The 1960s

The 1960s began with hope. The communist witch-hunt was over and in 1960

John Kenendy was elected the President of the United States. The young man charmed the whole of America. His assassination in 1963 was a shock of which the nation recovered with difficulty. Other blows were the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and

Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. The unsuccessful war in Vietnam was a full stop of otherwise culturally and socially fecund period. 51

Concerning culture, the 1960s brought many new styles in literature, film, and mainly music. For the first time, American artists were overshadowed by the invasion of

British performers led by the Beatles. The new cultural background contributed to creation of new alternative lifestyles (such as the hippies) and expansion of the drug scene. The invention of the Pill allowed people to perceive sex not only as a means of procreation. All the social and cultural changes ended in some civil rights movements, particularly black, women’s and gay liberation movements. 52

The 1960s changed the political status of gay people. The Mattachine Society was winning a recognition by the public and started functioning as a public organization. It got to a political trial in 1963 when a Congressman John Dowdy introduced a bill which should cancel the Mattachine Society’s permission for fund-raising and forbid giving permissions to any conformable organization. The trial got as far as before a

Congressional committee where (as the first openly gay person) the Mattachine’s president testified and clarified the Mattachine’s intent to protect homosexuals from . The bill was reported to the Senate where it finally failed. 53

51 Eisenbach (2006: 27), Kaiser (1997: 136-137, 145) 52 Kaiser (1997: 136-137, 144, 148-152) 53 Eisenbach (2006: 29-31) 25

Although the Congress was in favour of the homosexual problem, other public authorities were not. The police continued in campaigns against gay people and was sweeping streets and parks. The only change came in 1966 when the New York Mayor

John Lindsay’s interference (under pressure from the Mattachine Society) caused the cancellation of using plainclothes policemen to entrap gay people and lure them to break the law as well. 54

The law prohibited serving alcohol to homosexuals in catering establishments under the penalty of losing their liquor licence or being closed. In 1966, the Mattachine

Society arranged the so-called Sip In – members of the organization (accompanied by some journalists) circulated among several bars to prove that homosexuals were not served and thus discrimitated. After not being served in , the Mattachine Society filed a discrimination complaint against the bar. The State Liquor Authority refused to deal with this subject, but the Commission on Human Rights intervened. In 1967, the

New York State appellate court ruled that a bar could be closed only if considerable evidence of indecent behaviour existed (same-sex kissing or dancing was no longer regarded as indecent). This order of the court resulted in less common bar raids and bar closing. 55

The loosening of laws conduced to opening legitimate gay bars. Therefore the

Mafia started losing profit from its own bars. It moved the spheres of its activity to private clubs which were immune against the State Liquor Authority and, in most cases, against the police as well (private bars could not be raided without a court warrant). 56

Extortion still remained one of the thorniest problems of wealthy gay men. The largest group of blackmailers was the so-called Chickens and Bulls, operating from

1961 to 1966 in the largest American cities. The police managed to expose the gang and

54 Eisenbach (2006: 45-46), Kaiser (1997: 145) 55 Eisenbach (2006: 46-47) 56 Eisenbach (2006: 47-48) 26 arrested thirty men who extorted more than a $1,000,000 from seven hundred victims

(including well-known personalities). In later years, the private clubs and their practical untouchability gave the Mafia a chance to extort their customers. 57

Changes did not avoid even the universities. In 1965, Bob Martin became the first openly gay student officialy admitted to a university (Columbia University). Two years later, this man founded the Student League (SHL), the first organization of gay students formally recognized by an American university. The SHL was accepted, mainly because its leaders promised not to be a social group, but rather an educational one, and its members would not reveal their identities. At this point the SHL was not successful, because it was given a massive coverage in the media. 58

While the straight world was slowly beginning to recognize the gay community, inside it there was raging a struggle. The gay organizations were divided by their estimation of homosexuality as an illness. The branch of the Mattachine

Society wanted no change, because they found it advantageous to be seen as mentally ill and thus legally protected. The Washington and New York branches members declined to accept homosexuality as an illness and in 1965 they published a statement declaring it an orientation at the same level as heterosexuality. When the decision was made, thenceforth every action taken by the organizations was directed this way. 59

Once the gay organizations found a common ground, it was easier to achieve a success in the policy of law and win against the American Congress and New York police and State Liquor Authority. The only thing missing was a slogan that would bring the gay rights movement nearer to the general public. When the North American

Conference of Homophile Organizations took place in 1968 in Chicago, it adopted a

“Homosexual Bill of Rights” and also a slogan coined by Frank Kameny – “Gay is

57 Eisenbach (2006: 7-9, 48), Kaiser (1997: 146) 58 Eisenbach (2006: 51-58), Kaiser (1997: 146-147) 59 Eisenbach (2006: 40-43) 27 good.” The slogan should liberate homosexuality from negative connotations (like perversion, illness, or criminality) and help gay people feel proud of who they were. 60

The changes in political attitudes toward gay people reflected in the media as well.

We can even say that in reality the media helped the general public discover the gay community much more than any gay organization or public authority. At the beginning of the 1960s, homosexuality started appearing on the front pages of respectable newspapers and magazines more frequently than in the previous years. In spite of this, the articles dealing with gay community still carried the signs of the witch-hunt era – they still maintained the old prejudices and asked their readers what was wrong with their country where so many “undesirables” lived and how to get rid of them (e.g. the

Harper’s ’s “New York’s Middle-Class Homosexuals” or the New York Times ’s

“Growth of Homosexuality in City Provokes Wide Concern”). 61

This trend inspired also the journalists of the Life , a photomagazine that belonged to the most popular American prints and often covered the most controversial topics. In

1964, the journalists Paul Welch and Bill Eppridge travelled to San Francisco to make a reportage in the local gay community. In contrast to all the previous newspaper and magazine articles that presented the official standpoint, Welch contacted the members of the Mattachine Society to get to their midst. The Mattachine (and mainly its San

Francisco president, an ex-journalist ) saw a chance to influence the media in their view of homosexuality and even the reprsentations of homosexuals they provided.

The traditional stereotype of an effeminate, criminal gay man describing in the media could be changed to a masculine, middle-class, law-abiding ideal. With the aid of Hal

Call, Welch and Eppridge gained access to places never shown to heterosexual people.62

60 Eisenbach (2006: 49-50), Kaiser (1997: 147-148) 61 Kaiser (1997: 156-159), Meeker (2002: 151-154) 62 Meeker (2002: 155-159) 28

The article was not mentioned on the cover of the American edition of the Life and was found on page 66. The first photo in the article was the one taken in the Tool Box

(a bar belonging to the rough gay men who wore leather jackets and liked motorbikes, famous for its black-and-white mural where these masculine men were painted). It was the first authentic photo of a gay bar ever printed in the press. The magazine featured another images taken in San Francisco, namely from the Jumpin‘ Frog bar (gay men watching Some Like It Hot ) and a portrait of Hal Call. This shot was groundbreaking, because it was one of the first photographs of an openly gay person published in

American press. Furthermore, Call looked quite average. His portrait helped to destroy the old image of a sex pervert easily spotted in the streets. For the first time, the San

Francisco photographs demostrated to the American public that gay men could be masculine, indifferent, and ordinary. The photographs were anomalous by one more reason – they showed no police harassment. 63

The Life featured also photographs from New York City and Los Angeles. These pictures were much more known to the public. The New York photographs took a portrait “fairies” – the stereotypical effeminate gay men. Still, these pictures affected more positively than the photographs from Los Angeles – these portrayed male prostitues and gay men arrested by undercover policemen and touched the reader with danger and despair. 64

Concerning the text accompanying the photographs (after all, the Life was a photomagazine), nothing changed. Although Paul Welch introduced a completely new and unfamiliar character of gay men (“These brawny young men in their leather caps, shirts, jackets and pants are practicing homosexuals…”), he maintained all the old prejudices: “…the "gay world," which is actually a sad and often sordid world.” The

63 Meeker (2002: 160-165) 64 Meeker (2002: 166-168) 29 text described the gay communities in several American cities and tried to bring them nearer to its readers – it delineated the various types of gay bars and tried to profile some gay individuals. It also introduced the gay organizations (particularly the

Mattachine Society) and clarified the reasons for police harassments. The text and the photographs confined themselves to the description of white gay males – no reference to black gay men or was made. 65

The article in the Life was accepted with a large interest. The editors of the magazine received a record number of responses. Although some of them were purely negative, the most of the responses were positive opinions of people who had the very first chance to take a look inside a gay world. The article was groundbreaking with the intent that it at least tried to give an objective evidence about a culture that the general public knew only from court cases and police records. 66

The increasing successes of the gay organizations on the political field in later years were reflected in the press. The largest media coverage experienced the opening of the Student Homophile League on the Columbia University. In 1967, Murray

Schumach wrote an article “Columbia Charters Homosexual Groups” for the New York

Times . The front-page article reported on the complicated process of the SHL foundation and praised the courageousness of its members. The article served as a base for similar reports in the press from the whole of the United States. Surprisingly, the majority of the articles depicted the foundation of the SHL in a positive way. 67

The censorship of film started loosening in the 1960s. In spite of it, homosexuality still remained a taboo in American cinema. The British groundbreaking film Victim , the first film to feature a homosexual protagonist (played by Dirk Bogarde) had not even the smallest chance to get to American cinemas in 1960. Later on,

65 Life 66 Meeker (2002: 172-175) 67 Eisenbach (2006: 59-64 30 homosexuality could be featured in a film only if it was rightly punished. Among the very few films dealing with this subject were Children’s Hour (drama of a lesbian teacher, starring Shirley MacLaine) and Advise and Consent (another drama, this time of a senator who commits a suicide when his homosexual experience is revealed). The

1960s films showed homosexuality as a social tragedy and promoted the rooted prejudices. 68

The theatre was much more affected by homosexuality than the cinema. In 1968, the first “openly” gay play and, at the same time, the first play sympathetic to gay men was performed in Broadway – The Boys in the Band . The intelligent and humorous story of a birthday party attended by gay men was a huge success. The gay characters differentiated in every single way (from a married man to a stereotypical effeminate man) and honestly and openly introduced the to the (not only) straight theatre-goers. The play was praised by the critics who appreciated that its characters had a good time and did not kill themselves at the end (which was typical for every gay character till then), in plain terms, they were human beings. Nevertheless, the gay activists were not enthusiastic, quite the contrary. They denounced the play for it depicted gay men as self-hating things arousing sympathy. The Boys were really depressed of who they were, but they also told the audience a liberating message that a homosexual could neither change or cure, that homosexuality was innate. 69

Television as the most popular medium could not marginalise and avoid topics that were connected with the social, cultural, and political changes of the 1960s.

Television viewers required information on once taboo subjects and the television stations intended satisfying their demands. The first television documentary on homosexuality was “” aired in 1961. The real breakthrough was the CBS’s

68 Kaiser (1997: 152-155), Seidman (1998: 87, 127) 69 Eisenbach (2006: 81-82), Kaiser (1997: 185-190) 31

1967 documentary “The Homosexuals.” The programme embodied all of the invariably lingering prejudices and stereotypes. It promoted the hypothesis that homosexuality was a curable illness (supported by the opinions of famous psychiatric experts). But at the same time it tried to have a look at the problem from the other side. It made an interview with two openly gay men who recounted their lives, homosexual experience, relationships, affairs. To be “politically correct” and not to leave the official standpoint, the broadcast ended with an interview with a closeted married man who did not support gay liberation. The programme was watched by 40,000,000 viewers and thus supplied information on homosexuality to more people than any other media ever. 70

Owing to the success of the Mattachine Review and One , another gay magazines had the door opened. In 1966, the Washington branch of the Mattachine Society started publishing the Homosexual Citizen, a newsletter sent to the media and the politicians on the highest posts. In 1968, a straight pornographic magazine Screw installed a section named after the newsletter where the gay activists reported on the political scene, events and news from the organizations. Thanks to being placed in a hard-core magazine, “The

Homosexual Citizen” reached the sale of 150,000 copies a month. Another newly established magazine that reached a modest sale was the Los Angeles Advocate , first published in 1967. In later years, it began to be distributed nationally and today it is the most important gay magazine in the United States. 71

The Stonewall Riots

The was a Mafia-run gay club, located on Christopher Street, New

York City. It was opened in 1967, at the time of dramatic political changes. The Liqour

State Authority could not close a bar because it served homosexuals. Raids became less

70 Kaiser (1997: 160-171) 71 Eisenbach (2006: 33, 82), Kaiser (1997: 171-172) 32 frequent as well. Mafia sold the bars and started establishing private gay clubs that were immune from police raids as private homes. Police could inspect a club only with a court warrant. The majority of club owners paid a rent to police not to raid the clubs.

Owing to the unconcern of the police, the clubs, and the Stonewall Inn in particular, were not adhering the basic safety regulations. There were no running water (which caused an epidemic of hepatitis among the customers) and no fire exits in the clubs. The clubs were also a convenient place to sell drugs. The Mafia was using the clubs to blackmail their customers as well. 72

In 1969, the New York detectives (by request of the INTERPOL) uncovered a criminal organization that specialised in extorting older wealthy gay men. The organization operated in the Stonewall Inn. To circumvent the corrupted NYPD officers, the club should have been raided and subsequently closed by the Morals Unit.

On June 24, 1969, the club was raided, its staff arrested and its liquor confiscated. On

June 29, 1969, the second raid took place. The detectives started arresting the employees and transvestite customers and destroying the club’s equipment. In contrast to the previous raids, the customers did not leave this time. They stayed and watched what would happen. When the policemen started beating the arrested with truncheons, the crowd that was growing rapidly attacked. A riot broke out. 73

The detectives had to barricade themselves in the club when bottles and cobllestones started smashing against the walls. The rioting was finished when riot police arrived. The situation happened again the next day, but this time, thousands were participating. In comparison to other riots in New York City in the 1960s, the Stonewall riots were mild. Less than thirty people were arrested. But the event became legendary

72 Eisenbach (2006: 84-86), Kaiser (1997: 197-198) 73 Eisenbach (2006: 86-91), Kaiser (1997: 198) 33 because the rioters were homosexuals. The disorders ended in foundation of two new gay rights organizations – the and the . 74

The most important consequence of the riots was that the media had to change their description of gay people – they were no longer the invisible, passive, and fragile.

They were tough and fought in the streets for their rights. The millions of readers, television viewers and radio listeners were thus offered a new view of homosexuality. 75

The first riot was mentioned in every local newspaper, including the New York

Times , the New York Post , and the Daily News . Predictably, the articles reported that the police arrested thirteen people, and that several policemen were injured. The progress of the riot was described as well. After the second riot, the Daily News and the New York

Post published articles that recounted the riots in negative way (“Homo Nest Raided,

Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad”). On the contrary, the New York Times gave its readers a liberal and nearly positive view, trying to explain what caused the disorders. The opinion that the riots were a turning point in human liberation was published first in the

Village Voice . Although the article used the old prejudices and stereotypes, it managed to describe the power and agression of the rioters (its author was right in the place). The coverage of the story was later followed by national media, like Time and Newsweek .76

Owing to the media coverage of the riots, the old prejudices and stereotypes was left and substituted by a new image of a homosexual. Moreover, the coverage resulted in understanding of sexuality in political terms by gay people all over the United States who had not been aware of any gay activism. Since the Stonewall riots, gay men and lesbians have been present in media up to this day.77

74 Eisenbach (2006: 91-103), Kaiser (1997: 198-202) 75 Eisenbach (2006: 94-95) 76 Eisenbach (2006: 95-100), Kaiser (1997: 201) 77 Eisenbach (2006: 101-114) 34

Indeed, the riots experienced reactions in the gay press. The first response was published in the Screw ’s column “The Homosexual Citizen.” Its authors celebrated the finally ignited spark that inflamed a real gay liberation and hoped the riots would start a new sexual revolution. The riots also provoked an establishing of new radical newspapers. One of the first was Gay Sunshine . Another, GAY , reached readership

20,000 with its first copy. It became the most popular gay newspaper of that time and in six months started being released weekly, as the first gay newspapers ever. 78

The 1960s in Great Britain

Although politicians and public supported gay rights and reforms were about to be made, the British police still raided gay bars and arrested gay people in the 1960s.

But the 1960s social and cultural revolution affected Britain as well. In 1964, the government reformed the laws of abortion, divorce, and death penalty. On July 27,

1967, sex between two same-sex adults in private was decriminalized by the Sexual

Offences Act. 79

The media felt the benefits of revolution. Television and radio programmes and stage plays could offer once forbidden topics (e.g. Joe Orton’s plays dealt with various aspects of human sexuality, including homosexuality). Televisions made documentaries about gay life where gay men related their lives. 80

The film industry dared to make the first films about homosexuality ever – in

1960, two films memorialising appeared. In 1961, a breakthrough film

Victim was made, starring Dirk Bogarde as a gay man trying to revenge his lover’s death. 81

78 Eisenbach (2006: 102 - 104), Kaiser (1997: 201-202) 79 Cook (2007: 174-177) 80 Cook (2007: 175-176) 81 Cook (2007: 173) 35

Conclusion

The situation of gay people in the United States and Great Britain differentiated in the 1960s. American gays were still experiencing the effects of the witch-hunt era.

American media were still promoting the old prejudices and stereotypical images of gay people. By contrast, British media were profiting from the attitudes of sympathetic society.

British films offered a positive description of gay people treated unjustly by society, while the American cinema offered rather tragic stories of homosexuals who deserved the punishment for who they were was not accepted by the society. British televisions also offered their viewers to watch the confessions of real gay people, while the American documentaries offered only the official standpoint.

36

4. The 1970s

Early after the Stonewall riots, a new gay rights movement organization was founded. The Gay Liberation Front, was the first organization that the word “gay” in its name. The organization was divided into several cells that ensured various tasks, from dances to political resolutions. The most important invention of the Front was a so- called zap – a public confrontation with politicians who were thus pressed to answer the activists’s questions and express their opinion of the gay problem. Nonetheless, the inability of its members to agree on the Front’s aims discontinued its actions within a year. The GLF became a symbol of toughness and political pressure, remaining so for the furture generations of gay activists. 82

The successor of the GLF was the Gay Activists Alliance, founded in 1969 by former members of the (still working) GLF. In contrast to the GLF, the GAA’s administration was more structured. Its members were divided into several committees that was responsible for single tasks. Its main aim was to struggle for gay rights (the

GLF struggled even for a complete social revolution). The GAA also specialised in organising zaps, political marches, and lectures for university and secondary school students. As the first gay rights organization ever, the GAA started using the mass media to manipulate them into changing the old image of homosexual in compliance of the GAA’s conception. Their symbol, the Lambda, was adopted as the international symbol of gay rights. 83

Third important gay rights organization was the National Gay Task Force, founded in 1973. Its main aim was a change of policy and negotiation. Its members were educated professionals who were gaining their point by lobbying. 84

82 Eisenbach (2006: 124-142) 83 Eisenbach (2006: 144-181) 84 Eisenbach (2006: 243-245) 37

The 1970s were even rich in founding gay-friendly organizations by heterosexuals. In 1972, an international organization connecting parents of gay people,

Parents of Gays (later renamed Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) was founded.

The PFLAG helped the parents understand their children and “come out” to their families and friends. 85

The GAA activists was zapping not only politicians, but also psychiatrists. Its members rejected the idea that homosexuality was an illness. After a couple of interrupted psychiatric conventions, the psychiatrists that sympathised with the gay rights movement held a discussion about the subject at a convention in 1972. The event was exceptional because an openly gay psychiatrist gave a speech for the first time. The hope that homosexuality would be removed from a list of illnesses started shaping up when John Spiegel, a closeted psychiatrist, was elected a president of the American

Psychiatric Association in 1973. Another convention discussing homosexuality was an illness was held later in 1973. Liberal psychaitrists claimed that people suffering from mental disorders experienced distress, but the majority of gay people were comfortable with who they were. Unhappy homosexuals who wanted to be cured were labelled with the term “homodysphilia.” After several negotiations, the American Psychiatric

Association voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on December 15, 1973. Although the opponents of the resolution arranged a referendum in 1974, the resolution remained unchanged. 86

By the mid-1970s, politicians were including the fight against discrimination against sexual orientation routinely. Some politicians were even using the subject to be

85 Eisenbach (2006: 203-204) 86 Eisenbach (2006: 221-254), Kaiser (1997: 235-240) 38 elected with the aid of the votes by gay people. Former gay activists involved themselves in politics. Many cities in the United Stated passed gay rights laws. 87

However, conservative part of public started getting stronger and protesting against gay rights and abortions. The hostile religious leaders did not get left behind.

Society began to fear for family values. An anti-gay rights movement was formed. The main argument of the anti-gay rights activists was that although homosexuals should have had equal rights, their equal rights would have threatened heterosexuals and the traditional institution of family. As a result, politicians started repudiating the gay rights to ingratiate with the majority of voters (e.g. Jimmy Carter). The strengthening anti-gay atmosphere culminated in where an anti-gay rights campaign Save Our Children took place. Its spokesperson was a former Miss Oklahoma, Anita Bryant. In 1977, a referendum about the gay rights legislature was passed. The Florida voters decided that the gay rights laws would be repealed. For the rest of the United States, Anita Bryant became a symbol of bigorty and a laughing stock. In spite of this, politicians did not stop using the anti-gay rights mood in favour of gaining votes. On the contrary, Ronald

Reagan (former supporter of gay rights movement) was elected president in 1980 because, among others, he ranged himself with the opponents of the gay rights. 88

The 1070s meant a radical change in the media direction. Since the Stonewall riots, the gay liberation movement became a fixed part of the front-page news and every remarkable event associated with gay people was given a huge attention in the national media. The tragic accident of a gay arrestee (of a police raid in March, 1970) who plummeted onto a fence when trying to escape from a police station recieved the biggest media coverage since the riots. A photo of the impaled man published in the Daily News outraged the whole public. Also the Parade held in commemoration of the

87 Eisenbach (2006: 266-267) 88 Eisenbach (2006: 270-290) 39

Stonewall riots on June 28, 1970 attracted attention of press, radio, and television which introduced the participants not as deviants, but as a minority of gay people, and gave the march a positive undertone. 89

The gay rights organizations, the GAA in particular, saw the power that could be gained by the attention of the media. News reports on the zaps could show that gay people were political and serious about their liberation, and thus change the stereotypical image of homosexuals. Only the positive view of homosexuality could move the public to think well of gay people. The zaps were given sympathetic and supportive coverage and influenced the readers, listeners, and viewers that gay people were an oppressed minority. 90

Homosexuality was no longer a taboo for television. TV stations were filming documentaries about openly gays (WOR-TV’s film about the gay activist ) and gay people were being invited to TV talk shows where they presented themselves as intelligent, articulate, and respectable people (the first gay man ever was invited to the

Phil Donahue Show – his name was ). The gay activists realised that television was the most powerful medium, watched by millions of people. What did not appear on TV, that was not credible. Even the popular programmes, like sitcoms, were incorporating gay characters (and this created a new gay stereotype – a masculine tough football player – which became a fashion; e.g. Alice ). The first television film with a gay theme was made in 1972 – An American Family , a story of a family with a gay son. 91

The 1970s’s film industry was free to make films which included characters of effeminate gay men (e.g. Car Wash in 1976), straight men disgusted by their homosexual experience (e.g. Ode to Billy Joe , made in 1976 – the ashamed protagonist

89 Eisenbach (2006: 104-113), Kaiser (1997: 215-218) 90 Eisenbach (2006: 131-146) 91 Eisenbach (2006: 149-257), Kaiser (1997: 206-209) 40 commits a suicide) or gay men feeling self-hatred (e.g. Looking for Mr. Goodbar made in 1977 – the main female protagonist is raped and murdered by a gay man who thus vents his self-disgust). The situation changed with an Academy Award-nominated 1975 film Dog Day Afternoon . Al Pacino starred as a tough gay hero who rebelled against oppression. This film helped to change the old prejudices and stereotypes. However, a real breakthrough was achieved by Sunday, Bloody Sunday – the first film that demonstrated a kiss of two men. 92

The GAA founded a committee which task was to monitor newspapers, magazines, books, radio broadcasts, TV shows, and films, and adjudicate if the descriptions of homosexuals were not offensive. If a piece was found inappropriate, letters of complaints were sent to the responsible until the description changed. 93

The media played an important role in the struggle of the gay activist for removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. The press and TV informed on the running negotiations of the psychiatric conventions nearly every day. By asking if homosexuality was an illness at all in their reportages, the media were forcing their readers and watchers ask the same question. When homosexuality was removed from the list, the media convinced its consumers that the resolution was right. 94

The end of the zaps caused a declining publicity of the gay rights movement. The accumulation of the backlash against gay people and rising support of the anti-gay rights movement returned homosexuality to the front-page news, but somewhat changed its tune. The media started expressing their support to the opponents of gay liberation and a real frenzy erupted after Anita Bryant had intervened. When Bryant’s popularity began to decrease and she became an object of joking and a symbol of extremism and

92 Eisenbach (2006: 257), Kaiser (1997: 209), Seidman (2002: 128-132) 93 Eisenbach (2006: 152-154) 94 Eisenbach (2006: 221-254) 41 bigotry, the liberal media inclined back to the gay rights, but not in such a positive way as in time of the gay rights movement. 95

The 1970s in Great Britain

The 1970s brought the gay rights movement to Great Britain as well. The Gay

Liberation Front was founded in 1970 in London and immediately started publishing its newspaper Come Together , zapping political campaigns, and promoting gay liberation and promoting freedom of sexual difference. The organization was fighting for equal rights and termination of discrimination. The GLF also demanded removal of homosexuality from the UK register of psychiatric illnesses which happened in 1973.

The first Gay took place in London in 1972. The GLF disbanded the same year, unable to overcome the conflicts inside the organization. In spite of this, it became a model of many other gay rights organizations, e.g. the Gay Activists Alliance in

1978. 96

Although the British society and the media as well supported gay rights in the

1960s, when gay people became more visible in the 1970s, the sympathy quickly faded.

The hostility of the public was again reflected in the hostility of the media. Stereotypical images of effeminate gay men who threatened children returned on television and radio programmes. 97

Conclusion

The gay liberation movement arose in the United States and Great Britain at the same time and for the same reason. The American public and media accepted the new

95 Eisenbach (2006: 273-290) 96 Cook (2007: 179-183) 97 Cook (2007: 191-192) 42 image of gay people and their struggle for liberation positively and adopted a negative attitude not until the end of the decade. The British public and media dismissed the gay liberation right from its start. Therefore this standpoint facilitated the return of the hostility toward homosexuality and reestablished the new struggle for preservation of traditional family values.

43

5. The 1980s

At the beginning of the 1980s, oncologists discovered a rare form of cancer, known as the Kaposi’s Sarcoma, in tens of gay men. This type of cancer usually develops approximately a decade, but the gay men died within a year of diagnosing the disease. The KS patients’s immune system was also malfunctioning. The disease was named Gay Related Immune Deficiency, but, after the protests of National Gay Task

Force, the term was changed in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 98

Owing to the unconcern of the national institutions about the new disease, gay men had to found their own institutions to deal with the exploding crisis and help the patients with legal and social matters. First of such organizations was the Gay Men’s

Health Crisis, founded in August 1981. 99

When the ways of transmitting AIDS become known (through unprotected sexual intercouse and use of shared needles by drug addicts), no one tried to impart them to the public. Moreover, the leaders of the gay organizations were rejecting the changes in sexual behaviour and exhorting gay men to keep being promiscuous. The changes would have also endangered bathhouses, bars, and clubs which were financing the gay organizations. 100

When AIDS finally started being reported on in the media, the situation deteriorated for gay men. They were forced to leave restaurants, refused medical attendance, moved out of their accommodation, even refused shaking hands. Hostility toward gay men increased rapidly again. In 1983, an anti-gay organization called a

Moral Majority was founded. It demanded the prohibition of gay baths and bars and blood donation by gay men, calling AIDS the punishment of God. The opinion that gay

98 Eisenbach (2006: 292), Kaiser (1997: 278-279) 99 Eisenbach (2006: 292), Kaiser (1997: 290-295, 298-300) 100 Eisenbach (2006: 296) 44 people threatened American families and children thus returned in a new form. In protest, the gay activists founded the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in

1985 and also the Lavender Hill Mob, a political organization that specialised in zapping politicians and church representatives. Another organization, the AIDS

Coalition to Unleash Power (or the ACT-UP) was founded in 1987 which was zapping pharmaceitical companies and stock exchanges (the price of the only known medicine against AIDS was steep, and thus inaccessible for the majority of patients). It adopted a as its symbol and introduced a slogan SILENCE=DEATH. 101

The AIDS crisis striked at the time when gay people started being accepted by the public. The media coverage of the disease as a “gay plague” reverted to the foregoing hostility. Homosexuality was recognised not to be an illness, but stigmatised as causing an illness. For that reason the disease was marginalised in the media. In (right) apprehension of another gay backlash and a massive accrual of , the media were withholding basic information, such as the ways of the disease transfer, and remaining optimistic, repeating the official announcements. 102

The press covered the AIDS problem very slowly and reluctantly. First article dealing with the AIDS crisis was “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals,” published in the New York Times in July 1981 (this reportage was followed by only one another that year). In December of the same year, Newsweek published an article “Diseases that

Plague Gays” describing an outbreak of a fatal disease caused by the promiscuous lifestyle of gay men, one article was published in Time . In 1982, only thirty articles were published on AIDS. The press was not interested in the disease, until it affected heterosexuals as well. After gaining the attention of the press, AIDS was mentioned

101 Eisenbach (2006: 298-305), Kaiser (1997: 284-285, 318-325) 102 Eisenbach (2006: 291-294) 45 twice as much in e.g. San Francisco newspapers and magazines than in the New York ones (concerning “straight” as well as gay press). 103

The attitude of the press towards AIDS changed radically after an article by Randy

Shilts was published in the San Francisco Chronicle in March 1983. This article made a previously unreleased report on AIDS public. It found that one of every 350 gay men was infected with AIDS in San Francisco. This article was followed by many other, e.g. an article published in the Newsweek in April of the same year. This article (“Caution

KS/AIDS”) fisrt reported on the danger caused by promiscuous sexual behaviour of gay men. Although it did not mention that the same danger was impending over the straights as well, it showed the public how AIDS was transmitted for the first time. The

Newsweek article was followed by many others, the number of reportages on AIDS increased manifold. 104

A real breakthrough in dealing with the AIDS crisis in the media was an article published in Time in August 1985 – “AIDS: A Spreading Scourge.” It reported on the most shocking news for the American public – Rock Hudson, an actor and America’s

“sweetheart” was dying of AIDS. Moreover, owing to the insufficient medical care in the USA, he was treated in France. Owing to Hudson, homosexuals and AIDS patients gained a much more sympathetic coverage in the press. 105

The activities of organizations such as the ACT-UP gained a huge media attention as well. Their zaps experienced sympathy and support in the majority of the American prints. 106

AIDS made its first television appearance in ABC’s Good Morning America in

December 1981. The sunject was not covered until the August 1982 when CBS’s

103 Eisenbach (2006: 291-295), Kaiser (1997: 279-282) 104 Eisenbach (2006: 297-298), Kaiser (1997: 287-290) 105 Eisenbach (2006: 301-302), Kaiser (197: 325) 106 Eisenbach (2006: 305-306) 46

Evening News informed its viewers on the spreading epidemic also affecting heterosexual people. It became a real part of the telecasting only after Rock Hudson was revealed to have AIDS in 1985. 107

The AIDS crisis got even to the stages. Larry Kramer, a writer, gay activist, and the founder of GMHC, wrote a play The Normal Heart which dealt with AIDS and blamed the gay activists for deepening the crisis. 108

The AIDS crisis brought a new hostility as well as sympathy towards gay people.

When the media were covering AIDS as a disease of sex addicts, straight public was trying to avoid any contact with gay people not to get infected. But when Rock Hudson and other well-known personalities were revealed to have AIDS, the sympathy of the media and the public moved not towards fatally ill gay people, but simply towards fatally ill people who were often dying alone and whose caring partners had no rights to make serious decisions, or even get informed on their health condition. The AIDS crisis thus helped gay community (among others) deal with the question of gay marriage. 109

The 1980s in Great Britain

AIDS appeared in Great Britain in 1981 for the first time. But, much like in the

United States, the disease was lacking attention of both the national institutions and the media. The AIDS crisis provoked the foundation of several gay organizations and campaigns dealing with the problems of the infected (e.g. Don’t Be Ignorant – London

Lesbians and Gay Switchboard). After the fashion of the USA, a British branch of the

ACT-UP was founded in London. 110

107 Eisenbach (2006: 294-302) 108 Eisenbach (2996: 297) 109 Eisenbach (2006: 307-308), Kaiser (1997: 325) 110 Cook (2007: 195-198) 47

The discrimination of gay people also proved to be a huge problem. Gay employees were dismissed, insurance companies refused to effect insurances with homosexuals, gay people could not get a mortgage. Some companies prevented their employees from taking the HIV tests. 111

However, the backlash caused a somewhat different reaction of gay people. In

1988, the major British cities were holding protest and marches of tens of thousands gay people. After the marches, the zaps became the major weapon of the gay activists. 112

The media were assuming the same as their American counterparts. The press covered the AIDS subject unsympatheticly and homophobicly. AIDS was called a “gay plague” and a punishment of God for being promiscuous and immoral. Even Princess

Diana’s gesture of shaking hands with an AIDS patient did not change the attitude.

Famous personalities dying of AIDS (such as Rock Hudson) were depicted as ashamed and self-loathing. On the other hand, the AIDS crisis induced the ill gay writers (e.g.

Paul Monette) to share their experience and write in the national newspapers and magazines. However, the hostile attitude of the media towards gay people in Britain was changing very slowly and was not overcome until the half of the 1990s. 113

Conclusion

Comparing the United States and Great Britain in the times of the AIDS crisis, there are some essential differences. Gay people were discriminated owing to the fear of the disease in both countries. Both countries’s gay activists were fighting for the end of the discrimination and political solution of the problem caused by the disease. But, while the American society and media were getting more sympathetic towards gay

111 Cook (2007: 199-201) 112 Cook (2007: 206-207) 113 Cook (2007: 199-204) 48 people and changing their hostile attitudes, the British proved to be strongly homophobic and gay people had to struggle for their rights harder than the Americans.

49

Conclusion

The depiction of gay people went through many dramatic changes during the twentieth century. The 1940s‘s media picked up all the known prejudices and created the stereotype (an effeminate sexual predator seducing young boys, wearing make up, with a limp wrist and a mincing walk) surviving for a long time. The press reported only on scandalous stories of indecent behaviour of sexual “perverts” and criminal cases from breaking the sodomy law to murder. No serious medical discussion was ever held.

Theatre used gay men only as an implement of humour, often criticised in the press.

Surprisingly, drag shows staged by the American army during the World War II were welcomed heartily. Homosexuality could appear in a film only if well concealed before the censors. Kinsey’s report made a breakthrough in when perceiving homosexuality as a kind of general sexuality rather than a perversion. In the 1940s, first gay magazines started being published.

The 1950s continued in the trends begun in the previous decade. The media still presented homosexuals as the effeminate sexual “perverts” committing the most violent crimes. Moreover, this attitude was supported by the government which condemned homosexuality as a security risk. Film industry and telecasting had no chance to use homosexuality as a topic because of a strict censorship. On the contrary, radio was the first medium which started an open discussion and gave a scope for gay activists. The most important publications of the 1950s was Donald Webster Cory’s book introducing gay life to general public and the first regular gay magazine, the Mattachine Review .

The 1960s brought a great amount of social and political changes. This reflected even in the attitude of the media towards homosexuality. The press was trying to explore the gay community, and even though the coverage of the subject still carried the signs of the old prejudices, an attempt to open-mindedness was made. While the film

50 industry still supported the old prejudices, theatre selected a new direction and (the same way as the press) tried to show homosexuality in a positive way. Even television offered its viewers programmes that dealt with homosexuality.

After the Stonewall riots, the media could no longer describe gay people as passive and effeminate. Owing to the riots, a new image of a homosexual was created and socially and politically accepted.

In the 1970s, gay activism was heavily covered by the media. Whether marches and zaps or the mediacal discussion about homosexuality, gay people were present in the everyday news. Gay people were invited in talk shows and became a part of film industry. The position of homosexuality in the media deteriorated by the end of the decade whith a backlash against the gay rights.

The AIDS crisis struggled with the unconcern of the media first. When Rock

Hudson and other celebrities were revealed to be dying of AIDS, the attitude changed.

The press as well as the television covered the subject sympathetically. The organizations helping AIDS patients and zapping politicians and pharmaceitical companies were given a huge media attention.

Comparing the attitudes of the media in the United States and Great Britain, they did not differentiate too much. The press in the 1940s promoted homosexuality as a vice threatening the morale of the army, and a sexual perversion. However, while the

American society (and the media as well) considered homosexuals as a security risk and praised the government for their prosecuting in the McCarthyist era, the British public became sympathetic towards gay people and the 1950s proceeded in a token of a discussion about gay rights. The media adapted to the change and selected a sympathetic tone as well.

51

The 1960s were a decade of great social and political changes in both countries, but while the Americans were slowly discovering the gay community, the British started recognising the gay rights. The media reflected this situations as well. The gay liberation in the 1970s made a big shift in both countries. While the Americans (and the media as well) were becoming more sympathetic towards gay people, the British assumed a more or less hostile attitude which reflected in the media as well. The AIDS crisis deepened the difference even more. The American public and media adopted a sympathetic attitude towards the AIDS patients and gay people, whereas the British public and media became unequivocally homophobic.

As we may observe, the public (whether the American or the British) has been influenced by the media. On the contrary, the media have always been influenced by the attitudes of the public. Strictly speaking, the media have been only reflecting the public opinion. The media coverage of gay people and their life is thus an interaction between the attitudes of the media and the attitudes of the public, affected by the gay community itself besides. The points of view of the media coverage and the public are complementary.

52

List of Works Cited Archer, Bert. The End of Gay. And the Death of Heterosexuality .

Toronto: Doubleday Candada, 2000.

Chauncey, George. Gay New York : Gender, Urban Culture, and the

Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 . New

York: BasicBooks, 1994.

Cook, Matt. A Gay History of Britain. Love and Sex Between Men Since

the Middle Ages . Oxford: Greenwood World Publ., 2007.

Eisenbach, David. Gay Power: An American Revolution . New York:

C Kaiser, Charles. The Gay Metropolis, 1940 – 1996 . London:

Phoenix, 1999.

Meeker, Martin. Contacts Desired. Gay and Lesbian Communications

and Community 1940s – 1970s . Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press,

2006.arroll & Graf Publishers, 2006.

Seidman, Steven. Beyond the Closet. The Transformation of Gay and

Lesbian Life . New York: Routledge, 2002.

Welch, Paul. “Homosexuality in America.” Life 24 July 1964: 66-74.

53