They ought to change the name from “Gay Pride” to “Gay Mad”! First Michael Petrelis was mad at Joe because Joe’s magazine didn’t have enough black people. Then Joe explained that it’s not just his magazine, a lot of other people worked on it too; and they were planning to photograph some black people but they had to cancel at the last minute. That explanation sounded reasonable and everyone temporarily calmed back down, except for Michael Petrelis, who is always hopping mad!!! Are you with us so far? Good. It’s about to get messier.
Then San Francisco Pride chimed in, and they were unhappy because a magazine called “Pride Magazine” being distributed in SF didn’t have any information about SF Pride. This is especially confusing because for the last couple of years, the nationally-distributed Pride Magazine always had a special local insert, customized to each particular city in which it was given out. But not this year! This year, they got rid of the local supplements. And also, black people. Still with us? Good.
So, why did they get rid of the local supplement? Money. As in, nobody has any of it.
Printing a paper magazine is super-expensive (just like any other service performed primarily for the benefit of senior citizens). This year, with advertisers drying up, there simply was no money to be made by printing local versions. So Pride Magazine is now purely national, with no expensive localized content. And SF Pride didn’t print a paper guide for SF either, presumably for the same reasons. The fact that SF Pride knew that a local guide was too expensive to produce makes it seem kind of mean of them to criticize Pride Magazine for deciding not to print one.
Meanwhile, humanity’s inexorable migration to digital media continues: If you’re looking for information about SF Pride, now you can find it all online. And if you’re looking for minorities, we’re told you can find some of them on the Internet, too.
Actually, Pride Magazine is a little more diverse than some folks are claiming. Long-suffering Joe points out that it contains “*diverse* editorial features such as examination of the plight of gay Arabs in Iraq, the state of the vanishing gayborhood, Obama’s lack of response to the LGBT community, a travel guide to gay Istanbul, and more.” Oh. Well that actually sounds rather interesting and thought-provoking. Hm. Who are we supposed to be mad at now?
