Audio Interview, Ronald Gold, June 23, 1973

  • BRUCE JEWELL: Mr. Gold, you're with the News
  • and Media Relations Committee of the Gay Activists
  • Alliance in New York City.
  • Could you tell me what the function of that committee
  • is within GAA?
  • RONALD GOLD: Yes.
  • It's to publicize what the Gay Activists Alliance is doing
  • and to publicize the aims and attitudes of the gay liberation
  • movement and to respond to what the media does carry
  • about gay issues and gay people by protesting where unnecessary
  • and praising where possible.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: What do you think the relationship
  • between the gay movement and the media is?
  • RONALD GOLD: Poor at the moment.
  • We are just emerging from a period
  • where the media didn't acknowledge we existed at all.
  • They are now beginning to do so.
  • I think that there is not any kind of media
  • in the country that doesn't take the gay liberation
  • movement seriously as a movement and doesn't recognize it
  • as a social force.
  • I don't think, however, that its aims, goals, and attitudes
  • are really understood by the media at all.
  • And I also don't think that they recognize
  • how many of the people that they're writing for, indeed,
  • the people who are writing articles for them
  • or reporting for them, are gay.
  • The only way to remedy that is for more gay people
  • to be out in the open.
  • And the only way for more gay people to come out in the open
  • is for them to understand, to see
  • by example through the media that people are doing it,
  • that people are getting away with it, that people are
  • enjoying themselves by being out and being free and following
  • that example.
  • When they do that, then the media will acknowledge them
  • and acknowledge all of us as a substantial segment
  • of the community, news of which must be
  • reported fairly and accurately.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: I've talked to gay people who
  • are aware that there is a gay movement,
  • but are often not aware of any of the issues involved,
  • in particular, the civil rights issues in the gay movement.
  • Now, this is the clearest indication to me
  • that media coverage has not been very extensive
  • and, for that matter, that our own publications, and so on,
  • have not been distributed as well as they might have been.
  • How do you think we might go about solving these problems?
  • That is, publicizing our own movement
  • through our own various media departments
  • and approaching, on the other hand,
  • the public media to publicize our work?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, I really don't
  • believe that gay (pause) movement, literature,
  • or anything like that is any way to really reach
  • the community at large.
  • And by that, I mean the gay community at large.
  • I think that these organs are useful,
  • so that those of us in the movement
  • have a place to speak to each other
  • and to get our ideas across to each other.
  • But, that's all these things reach.
  • And I'm concerned much more with reaching
  • the rest of the gay people, whose heads, I think,
  • would benefit by knowing what the gay movement is
  • and becoming part of it, or even if they're not part of it.
  • In any case, understanding where it's at and living it
  • in their own lives.
  • So that the only way we can really reach
  • them is through what they are reading and viewing,
  • which is what everybody else is reading,
  • viewing: the major newspapers and magazines and radio
  • and television stations.
  • And how do we go about doing--
  • you know, reaching them through that?
  • Well, I guess the main thing is to have events.
  • We must have actions.
  • In New York, I think we have been
  • successful by having some understanding of how
  • the media work, but, primarily, because we've had things
  • that they can report.
  • You cannot just go up to the editor of your local newspaper
  • or radio or TV station and say to them,
  • how about doing this wonderful story on gay liberation.
  • They're just not interested.
  • They have to have some kind of focus for that.
  • Some kind of civil rights-- some kind of civil rights issue
  • or some kind of event that's somehow newsworthy.
  • And it'd have to be I guess people
  • who are doing the political end of things
  • in the gay movement, who understand what the media are
  • going to find attractive and what
  • they're going to find boring.
  • Because-- well, I believe, of course,
  • that while the civil rights laws and the sodomy repeal laws
  • are extremely important and I wouldn't
  • deny that they ought to be done and quickly, I
  • think much more important is the whole kind
  • of revolution in thinking that needs to take place
  • among gay people and among the community at large in relation
  • to matters sexual and matters concerning how human beings may
  • differ from each other and still all be human.
  • I don't know where we--
  • I've lost the question somewhere.
  • What was the question at that point?
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Well, now I believe, with you,
  • that it's essential that we communicate.
  • But it becomes a matter of what we communicate as well.
  • What type of communications do you
  • think are valuable in, for one thing, informing
  • straight people and for another, informing
  • and-- if you want to put it this way-- inspiring gay people
  • to come out and live their lives in a more open and, perhaps,
  • less paranoid manner?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, the real information we have to get out
  • is that we're all there, that we're all different,
  • that we're all around, that we're everybody's
  • is Aunt Tilly and Uncle Harry, and we're
  • everybody's fellow schoolmate, and everybody's fellow worker.
  • It's just that they don't see us right now.
  • I mean, that's the most important thing.
  • And how we do that is by trying to get ourselves,
  • as individuals, before the public in some way or another.
  • Now, you can do that by fighting for us on a civil rights basis.
  • You can do that by trying to have these local laws passed,
  • and demonstrating, and so forth.
  • What is valuable to get across?
  • Well, at this particular moment, I
  • think one really very valuable thing to get across
  • to the community is fear.
  • Now, most gay people think that--
  • or many gay people find that kind of scary.
  • Because every time a militant action
  • takes place on the part of gay people,
  • the establishment's knee jerk reaction to that is to say,
  • you're hurting your own cause.
  • We really thought you were great folks
  • and you wore clean suits and dainty underpants.
  • But the trouble is now, you see, you're
  • all dirty-looking creatures with beards and you holler at us
  • and you beat us up and you really
  • are sort of nasty and vulgar.
  • And we were really going to vote for your rights.
  • But now, we're not going to do it.
  • And the horrible thing is that a lot of gay people believe that.
  • They read the daily paper.
  • And the daily paper says that Mayor X or Governor X has
  • this wonderful thing to say.
  • And they say, "Oh, isn't that terrible
  • what the gay liberation movement is doing to our cause."
  • Well, I don't care what they're saying to themselves
  • at that particular moment, because I think
  • that even they are beginning to say
  • to themselves in their heart of hearts,
  • isn't it wonderful that they are afraid of us, for a change?
  • Isn't it wonderful that all of these freaky people,
  • they may not be my freaky people,
  • because I'm, after all, a Vice President at General Electric
  • and not a radical militant, but isn't it nice
  • that these radical militants at least are not
  • the usual stereotype of what a gay person is, that somebody
  • is going to have to challenge the old notions of what
  • gay people are just by looking furthermore-- you know,
  • I'm a middle class soul.
  • I mean, I have the heart of a flaming radical.
  • But in point of fact, I'm middle class.
  • I have never been anything else.
  • I don't see how I could be anything else.
  • I'm not a violent person.
  • I look like your nice Jewish uncle, which in point of fact,
  • I am.
  • So I think people have to see me and have
  • to see all the rest of us.
  • And that will come forward.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Well, Mr. Gold, it may be true that--
  • I think it probably is true-- that if people perhaps
  • fear a punch in the nose next time they tell a fag joke,
  • that there will be some change in attitudes.
  • But it's also true that a number of the states,
  • where favorable legislation has been
  • passed on behalf of gay people, there has been no gay movement.
  • No publicity, no highly organized group,
  • such as GAA or the Gay Community Center in Los Angeles or SIR
  • in San Francisco.
  • As a matter of fact, both New York and California,
  • which have the most active groups,
  • have not really made great progress as yet
  • in the legislative area.
  • How do you explain this?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, for one thing,
  • the positive legislation you're talking about in all cases
  • has been repealed sodomy laws in those few states in which it
  • was repealed.
  • And the reason for that is very simple.
  • The model penal code, as outlined
  • by all of these various groups that have set it up
  • and the Bar Association approves it, and so on,
  • does not include a sodomy law.
  • And most of these states, which have
  • begun rethinking their penal statutes,
  • have simply begun to adopt the model penal
  • code fairly whole hog.
  • And that wasn't in it.
  • And nobody made a fuss about it.
  • And they just went ahead and passed it.
  • So other states are more cantankerous and sophisticated.
  • And everybody fights over each mouthful of the penal code.
  • And so it isn't so easy to get it done.
  • But another question that raises is whether or not
  • really that legal protection is the most important thing,
  • or is it the changing attitudes?
  • I would submit that in a climate where the sodomy law is
  • repealed, and nobody knows that it's been repealed,
  • it really doesn't do the gay liberation
  • movement all that much good.
  • In a climate like New York, (coughs)
  • where we've had a civil rights-- where
  • we don't have a sodomy law, but we've had marches in Albany,
  • you know, over the last couple of years and a lot of publicity
  • around it.
  • Where we don't have civil rights protections and a bill
  • failed three times, and horrendously so.
  • I mean I'm terribly upset about it and I wish the damn bill had
  • passed, because it's a good bill and would enable a lot
  • of people to come out who now can't.
  • But I really think that the publicity surrounding
  • these defeats was more important to us
  • than an easy victory would have been.
  • And that's why, once again, I really
  • think that for me these issues are simply
  • public relations tools to get the word across about
  • gay liberation, because I don't think gay liberation
  • is legal change really.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Many people, not many, but some people regard--
  • would regard what you're saying as propaganda.
  • I remember on the Jack Paar Show,
  • he mentioned that the New York Times,
  • it contained a number of stories about gay liberation.
  • And he referred to it as propaganda.
  • Do you think we are, in fact, involved and engaged
  • in propaganda?
  • And if so, is there an alternative?
  • Or do you think propaganda is a necessary adjunct
  • to a social change movements such as ours?
  • RONALD GOLD: I never understood why anybody
  • was upset about propaganda.
  • Propaganda is simply trying to get your point across
  • as loud as you can.
  • And we have a good point.
  • Now, propaganda is bad only when the point that it tries to make
  • is wrong or when it uses deceitful ways of selling
  • something that aren't really directly
  • concerned with its goals.
  • But we don't do that.
  • We tell the truth.
  • And we're going to win with the truth,
  • and if we holler loud and propagandize,
  • I hope, as much as we can.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: The newspapers, at least in Rochester as well
  • as radio obviously in Rochester, have
  • begun to cover the gay liberation movement.
  • The area that we seem to be weakest in,
  • in terms of information coverage, is the magazines.
  • I remember a year ago, I believe it
  • was, Life magazine did some coverage on the gay lib
  • movement.
  • They seem to have had a genius for choosing
  • perhaps the oddest segments of the gay lib movement
  • and concluded the article with a article
  • on whether gayness was, in fact, sick or not.
  • Now, what is the-- what is your feeling about magazines,
  • like Newsweek, Time, US News, and World Report,
  • which are read by a great many people
  • and which are influential?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, the news magazines I think
  • do cover gay liberation to some extent,
  • not as much as they ought to certainly.
  • But I've noticed articles in Time and Newsweek
  • on a fairly regular basis.
  • Not all of them have been articles that we liked.
  • But they are about-- they have been about the changing
  • attitudes toward homosexuality.
  • And sometimes, the attitude of the magazine
  • was not one we wanted them to take.
  • But at least, they were acknowledging
  • that things were happening.
  • So I don't think that's so bad.
  • As far as the other kinds of magazines are concerned,
  • what really now is something that I'd like us to get
  • into-- though, I don't think we have the people at the moment
  • to do it, but perhaps other groups could--
  • is simply to check out the various different magazines
  • with a whole list of different possible ideas for stories.
  • Now, if these people have staff writers--
  • if they're magazines with staff writers,
  • then one could suggest ideas and hope that the magazine assigns
  • a staff writer or an outside person of their choosing
  • to do the story.
  • Otherwise, I really think that there is a remarkable opening
  • in a lot of magazines that people are not
  • aware of the fact, that if they are writers,
  • the thing for them to do is to contact these magazines
  • and try to sell stories.
  • And I wouldn't advise just writing something--
  • unless you're one of these people who just compulsively
  • writes--
  • and hoping to sell it.
  • I think the best thing would be to say, look,
  • I have this fascinating idea for you,
  • and would you buy the piece?
  • And if you're not a known person,
  • the chances are they won't give you an advance on it
  • and won't tell you whether they'll
  • take it until they see it.
  • But at least, you'll have some sort of commitment
  • that they will take it seriously.
  • And then if it's any good, you might get it in.
  • And even if it doesn't get in, if you think it's any good,
  • then you can send it to someplace else.
  • That's what we ought to be doing there.
  • There's really a tremendous amount of room.
  • It's just that I don't think enough gay people know
  • that they ought to be writing these pieces.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Of late, the churches, as well as
  • the American Psychiatric Association, have been making--
  • I think, considering the time involved--
  • gigantic strides towards changing their attitudes
  • towards gayness.
  • These two organizations, the church
  • and the psychiatric organizations,
  • have been previously major antagonists
  • towards homosexual people.
  • Now that they're changing their attitudes,
  • it seems to me very important that this type of information
  • be broadcast far and wide.
  • How do you suggest we go about this?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, I think we have
  • to involve the members of those professions who
  • are on our side.
  • And incidentally, I think what we
  • failed to realize in the past, while lumping
  • all of these people together among our oppressors,
  • is that there were always a substantial number of people
  • on our side in these professions.
  • It was only that the people who hollered the loudest
  • were the bigots.
  • And the people that the media wanted to hear were the bigots.
  • But we can and we will--
  • I mean, for instance, Judd Marmor
  • over the past several years, who is the Vice
  • President of the American Psychiatric Association,
  • you know, come around to being really quite
  • strongly on our side within the profession.
  • And he's a very articulate and very forthright and good
  • person.
  • He has been willing--
  • we have called him, we have used him.
  • When we were complaining about ABC's Marcus Welby show, which
  • was so offensive to gay people, letters
  • were written by not only the Dr. Marmor
  • but by Dr. Green in Los Angeles, by Dr. Evelyn Hooker,
  • by Dr. George Weinberg, various people protesting this.
  • I think that in the future they will not
  • have such a show on the television networks,
  • I think not only because of pressure from us
  • but also from the weight of the testimony
  • of these distinguished people.
  • More recently, in relation to the psychiatric thing,
  • the idea is, force them to do things and then
  • force them to speak up when they've done them.
  • We went to the--
  • I went and Frank Kameny went to the American Psychiatric
  • Association convention in Hawaii this past spring.
  • And we expected that very interesting things
  • would occur there.
  • I'm sure that a lot of good did happen within profession there,
  • whether or not it was reported by the media.
  • But nobody would have known it.
  • Now, I took the trouble before I went out
  • there to make sure that the New York Times, that the Associated
  • Press, that the United Press, that Time and Newsweek,
  • and that all these organs that might be interested in it
  • were interested in it, you know, it took some time,
  • so that it did get covered by the wire services.
  • It did get more than a full page in Newsweek.
  • And as a result of the Newsweek article,
  • 60 minutes picked it up on CBS.
  • And we worked very closely with them.
  • They're going to do a segment on it soon.
  • And more recently here in New York,
  • we've had discussions with the people in NBC here
  • and sold them the idea that, that was an important story.
  • We've been dealing-- you know, as things develop,
  • we are not going to let them get buried.
  • I just learned recently, for example,
  • that two years ago, the Group for the Advancement
  • of Psychiatry, a very prestigious group
  • within the whole field of psychiatry,
  • took a very-- a strong position that homosexuality was not
  • an illness.
  • And indeed before that-- and I didn't know that,
  • that the National Institute of Mental Health
  • had done something-- the American Psychological
  • Association took a strong step recently
  • by changing its whole way of classifying research,
  • so that homosexuality was not considered
  • as an illness in that context.
  • Yet, none of these things were publicized.
  • And it really didn't do us any good.
  • Well, I'm hopeful that I can keep tabs
  • enough on some of these things that are happening
  • and sell them.
  • I'm also hopeful that other groups around the country
  • will join me in that.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Television is probably
  • the most important communications media
  • in the United States today.
  • And yet, it is clearly the one in which
  • the gay movement has made the least progress
  • in presenting our case.
  • How do you think we can approach television more effectively?
  • And what types of coverage or events
  • do you think we should try to get onto television?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, as far as what you get on television,
  • you know, you can sell them the stories,
  • but they usually like to have something that
  • has a picture attached to it.
  • You know, the whole question is, when
  • they don't want to cover something,
  • you know, they'll find an awful lot of ways not to cover it.
  • Either you don't have anything that's
  • really an exciting, hot shot, immediate, news event,
  • so therefore, they won't cover it,
  • because that's really something they don't do,
  • even though they do for other groups or in other issues.
  • Then if you do something, then they call that a media event.
  • And they don't want to cover media events,
  • because that's set up for the media.
  • So they got you coming and going.
  • The only thing to do is, you know, try to reach them.
  • Do things that they can't ignore,
  • reach their consciences by pointing out to them ways
  • in which they have offended gay people
  • and hope that you're dealing with some reasonable people.
  • Sometimes, you can.
  • Now, I want to point out that there
  • are two things in relation to television.
  • One is the news things.
  • And all of the things that I said previously
  • about newspapers really apply more or less to television.
  • But then there's a whole area of the dramatic shows, which
  • are perhaps more important, because more people watch
  • them and digest them.
  • And there, it's been pretty bad news.
  • I would say there have been maybe two or three
  • different things that I would call positive in the last year
  • or so in the TV dramatic shows.
  • Most of them have been perfectly awful.
  • You know, they think they're being
  • wonderful and daring and liberal by just even mentioning
  • that homosexuals exist.
  • We think that if they mentioned you exist and then depict you
  • with horns and a tail, that that doesn't help you all that much.
  • Well, we have had meetings--
  • that is, GAA in New York has had meetings--
  • with the vice presidents of all the three networks
  • and have outlined to them some of the things that we don't
  • like at all about these dramatic shows
  • and also about comedy shows and things like that.
  • I think they've absorbed it.
  • And I think they've learned their lesson.
  • The problem now remains, what on earth
  • can we give them to substitute for these awful, stereotypical
  • stuff?
  • We want to be continued to be mentioned
  • and to be there on (pause) network dramatic shows.
  • But, you know, there are too many problems still.
  • Still, gay rights and gay dignities
  • are controversial questions.
  • So that if they have a show in which some person is depicted
  • as a good person, then somebody in their higher echelons
  • of the network is going to look at that script
  • or look at that show and say, "Now wait a minute there,
  • you've got all these people out in Iowa
  • and you got all these psychiatrists
  • and you've got all these church people."
  • Or at least, that's what they think they have.
  • And these people are going to say, "Well, you
  • can't say that a homosexual is a good person.
  • You've got to get something in there to counteract that."
  • So what they may be doing at the moment--
  • (pause in recording)
  • --period.
  • We don't know what they're coming up with next season.
  • But my feeling is that they are laying low.
  • And it's up to us now to find ways
  • to get them to do things and do positive things.
  • I'm not too clear in my head about it.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Mr. Gold, what plans
  • does GAA have in the coming year for media presentation?
  • Any documentaries on the way?
  • Are any newspapers planning any special series?
  • Is the radio doing any special coverage?
  • RONALD GOLD: Well, as far--
  • I mean, locally here in New York,
  • the plans are often dependent on what
  • we're going to do as a whole organization,
  • as a political organization.
  • There are (pause) you know, there's
  • no way of telling what your thrust is going to be.
  • Certainly, we're going to pursue the whole area of psychiatry
  • and the changing attitudes of that profession.
  • We're going to pursue the changing
  • attitudes of the church and try to get those things across.
  • We're going to pursue the growing
  • complexity and diversity of openly gay people.
  • We're going to try to get business people who are openly
  • gay to write about it in the Wall Street
  • Journal and other places.
  • But, you know, it's a constant job.
  • You know, we had meetings with the New York Times.
  • We will probably have to have additional meetings,
  • because they've gone back to doing more or less what
  • they did in the first place.
  • And at least, we have kind of a liaison
  • now with some of the people there
  • and a continuing dialogue.
  • We do get more coverage than we used to.
  • But we have many reasons to complain.
  • So we push there.
  • In New York, the Times is essential.
  • The news is read by more people than anybody.
  • But we have had little or nothing in the news.
  • And what we have had has been mostly hideous and offensive,
  • including editorial offensiveness.
  • But we have reason to believe there's a new editor there
  • that we can approach him, sit down and try to talk,
  • and maybe do a little more there.
  • I am hopeful that some kind of--
  • what I'm going to try to do is try
  • to set up some sort of a network on a national basis
  • with other groups, so that when we
  • have reason to complain about stuff
  • that is being put forward on a national basis in television
  • or national magazines, and so forth,
  • that it can come from various sources at once.
  • Not only can we say what we're doing
  • and get other people to try to join us,
  • but the reverse can take place, that people
  • in any town or any area can let all the other groups know
  • what they're doing and try to coordinate something.
  • And I think that a kind of national pressure like that
  • is much more effective than what we can do here in New York,
  • even though New York is the center of the communications
  • business.
  • BRUCE JEWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Gold.
  • It's been an interesting interview.